Wakilii

Tomusange Lasto and Another v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 11 of 2021)

Supreme Court · [2026] UGSC 12 · 2026 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Second criminal appeal from a Court of Appeal decision upholding murder convictions and sentences
Decision
Appeal dismissed; convictions confirmed and sentences upheld; Appellants to continue serving their sentences.

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions — always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

On a second appeal against murder convictions, the Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeal had properly re-evaluated the evidence. A co-accused's retracted confession was admissible and corroborated, the confession having been made before a competent officer without inducement, threat or promise from any person in authority, and the alleged inducement coming from a relative with no authority over the maker. The confession was corroborated by bloodstained articles found at the 1st Appellant's home and DNA evidence matching the deceased. On sentence, the Court of Appeal properly exercised its discretion, the aggravating factors outweighing the mitigating ones. The appeal was dismissed by majority and the convictions and sentences confirmed.

Facts

The 1st Appellant, Tomusange Lasto, was the biological father of the deceased, a 2½-year-old child, Angello Sebugwawo, with whom he lived in Kawaala, Rubaga Division, Kampala. On 23 August 2012 the 2nd Appellant, Bulega Richard, a brother of the 1st Appellant, took the child away on the stated purpose of going to town; that was the last time the child was seen alive. On 29 August 2012 a dismembered torso of a child was discovered in Mpigi district and identified by relatives, and later by the 2nd Appellant, as Angello. The 2nd Appellant informed police that he had participated, with the 1st Appellant and others, in planning and carrying out the murder for ritual purposes. He gave a charge and caution statement to that effect, pleaded guilty and was convicted, but later retracted the confession. Bloodstained articles, including a knife and clothing, were recovered from the 1st Appellant's home, and DNA analysis confirmed the bloodstains matched the deceased.

Issues

  1. Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law in upholding the 1st Appellant's murder conviction founded on the retracted confession of the co-accused 2nd Appellant.
  2. Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law in upholding the sentences imposed on the Appellants without consideration of the mitigating factors.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Convictions of the 1st and 2nd Appellants confirmed.
  • Sentences imposed on the Appellants upheld.
  • The 1st and 2nd Appellants to continue serving their respective sentences.

Key headnotes

Evidence — Confessions — Retracted confession of a co-accused — Requirement of independent corroboration
A retracted confession of a co-accused must be treated with the greatest caution and carries practically no weight against a person other than its maker unless it is supported by independent corroborating evidence linking the co-accused to the offence.
Evidence — Confessions — Admissibility — Voluntariness and inducement by a person in authority
A confession is admissible where it is made voluntarily before a competent officer and free of inducement, threat or promise; an alleged inducement is of no legal effect unless it proceeds from a person who holds economic or social authority over the maker, and an attempted retraction in such circumstances is of no legal effect.
Evidence — Circumstantial and forensic evidence — DNA — Corroboration of a confession
DNA evidence stands alone as a reliable form of physical evidence and, where bloodstains on articles recovered from an accused's home are shown by forensic analysis to match the deceased, such evidence corroborates a confession and supports a conviction on circumstantial evidence.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Appeals — Duty of a second appellate court
The duty of a second appellate court is to determine whether the first appellate court properly discharged its duty to re-evaluate the evidence as a whole; it will interfere only where the first appellate court failed to apply, or misapplied, the principles governing that re-evaluation.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Sentencing — Appellate interference and mitigating factors
An appellate court will interfere with a sentence only where it is illegal, a material factor was not taken into account, or an error in principle was made; where the sentencing court considered both mitigating and aggravating factors and the aggravating factors outweigh the mitigating ones, the sentence will not be disturbed.

Legislation cited (8)

  • Penal Code Act s.188
  • Penal Code Act s.189
  • Evidence Act (Cap 6) s.24
  • Evidence Act (Cap 6) s.25
  • Evidence Act (Cap 6) s.30
  • Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 art.23(8)
  • Constitution (Sentencing Guidelines for Courts of Judicature) (Practice) Directions, 2013 reg.21(k)
  • Constitution (Sentencing Guidelines for Courts of Judicature) (Practice) Directions, 2013 reg.15(2)

Cases cited (11)

  • Androa Asenwa and Another v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1998)
  • Rwabugande Moses v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 2014)
  • Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
  • Pandya v R [1957] EA 336
  • Okeno v Republic [1972] EA 32
  • Charles Bitwire v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 23 of 1985)
  • Tuwamoi v Uganda [1967] EA 84
  • Yowana Sserunkuma v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 8 of 1989)
  • Kyalimpa Edward v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1995)
  • Kamya Johnson Wavamuno v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 16 of 2000)
  • Kiwalabye Bernad v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 143 of 2001)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.