Wakilii

Okada Raymond and Others v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 51 of 2015)

Supreme Court · [2026] UGSC 23 · 2026 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Second criminal appeal from Court of Appeal decision confirming a High Court conviction for murder
Decision
Appeal dismissed; conviction and life imprisonment of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd appellants confirmed; 4th appellant's appeal abated on death

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

The Supreme Court dismissed a second appeal against a murder conviction. It held that the trial and appellate courts properly applied the identification-evidence principles in Nabulere, the witnesses being familiar with the appellants at close range under good lighting, and correctly rejected the alibis as contradicted. Common intention was rightly inferred from the appellants' coordinated conduct; it was immaterial who fired the fatal shot. On sentence, the Court held it lacks jurisdiction over severity under section 5(3) of the Judicature Act; life imprisonment is a lawful penalty for murder, the 'rarest of the rare' doctrine applies only to the death penalty, and Article 23(8) deduction of remand time does not apply to indeterminate sentences.

Facts

The appellants were charged with the murder of Okori Agustino on 21 January 2002 at Te-Angolo Village, Apac District. At about 1:00am, persons came to the deceased's home, called him out, threw a stone to force open the door, and shot him. PW2 (the deceased's wife) recognised the 1st appellant's voice and saw the 2nd appellant at about 2.5 to 3 metres under bright moonlight aided by torchlight; she knew all the appellants as village mates, church mates and social acquaintances, the 4th being her husband's elder brother. PW3 recognised the voices of the 2nd and 4th appellants and saw them leaving the house. There was evidence of a pre-existing land dispute between the appellants and the deceased's family supplying a motive, and unchallenged testimony that the 2nd appellant later threatened a witness. The appellants raised alibis, which were found contradictory and inconsistent with their own witnesses' accounts.

Issues

  1. Whether the Court of Appeal failed to properly re-evaluate the evidence supporting the appellants' alibi and identification evidence placing them at the scene of the crime.
  2. Whether the appellants had a common intention to cause the death of the deceased where it was not established who fired the fatal shot.
  3. Whether the substituted sentence of life imprisonment was unlawful, excessive, or unconstitutional for not allowing deduction of remand time.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The 1st, 2nd and 3rd appellants shall each serve a sentence of imprisonment for life.
  • The appeal of the 4th appellant (Ochieng Benon) abated on his death in prison under Rule 67 of the Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules.

Key headnotes

Criminal Procedure — Appeals — Duty of a Second Appellate Court
A second appellate court is generally prohibited from re-appraising or re-evaluating evidence and making new findings of fact where there was evidence to support the original conviction; it intervenes only where the first appellate court erred in law by failing to properly direct itself on the evidence or the law.
Evidence — Identification — Conditions for Safe Reliance on Identification Evidence
Where a conviction depends wholly or substantially on identification evidence the court must exercise the greatest caution; a court may safely convict where the identification is of good quality, being made over a sufficient period, at close distance, in adequate light, and by a witness familiar with the accused before the incident.
Evidence — Defence of Alibi — Burden of Proof
An accused who raises an alibi assumes no burden of proof; the prosecution bears the duty to displace the alibi by placing the accused at the scene of the crime, and the court must evaluate both the prosecution and defence versions before accepting one.
Criminal Law — Common Intention — Section 20 Penal Code Act
Common intention under section 20 of the Penal Code Act may be inferred from presence at the scene, active participation and failure to disassociate, and does not require proof of a prior formal agreement; it is immaterial that it was not established which participant struck the fatal blow.
Criminal Procedure — Sentencing — Supreme Court Jurisdiction over Severity
Under section 5(3) of the Judicature Act, an appeal to the Supreme Court against sentence lies only on a matter of law and excludes the question of the severity of the sentence.
Criminal Procedure — Sentencing — 'Rarest of the Rare' Doctrine
The 'rarest of the rare' principle in Guideline 17 of the Sentencing Guidelines applies exclusively to the imposition of the death penalty and does not extend to sentences of life imprisonment, which remain lawful alternatives where the circumstances warrant.
Sentencing — Deduction of Remand Time — Article 23(8) and Indeterminate Sentences
The mandatory arithmetic deduction of remand time required by Article 23(8) of the Constitution applies only to determinate terms of imprisonment; indeterminate sentences such as life imprisonment and the death penalty fall outside its purview.

Legislation cited (7)

  • Penal Code Act s.188
  • Penal Code Act s.189
  • Penal Code Act s.20
  • Judicature Act s.5(3)
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 23(8)
  • Constitution (Sentencing Guidelines for Courts of Judicature) (Practice) Directions, 2013, Guideline 17
  • Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Rule 67

Cases cited (18)

  • [1998] UGSC 20
  • Abdalla Nabulere & Another v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 9 of 1978)
  • Abdalla Bin Wendo & Another v R [1953] 20 EACA 166
  • Sabwe Abdul v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 19 of 2007)
  • Charles Komwiswa v Uganda [1979] HCB 86
  • Ssemwanje Farouk v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 74 of 2021)
  • PC Ismail Kisegerwa & Another v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 6 of 1978)
  • Bogere Moses & Another v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1997)
  • Sekitoleko v Uganda [1968] EA 531
  • Samwiri Sewabiri v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1995)
  • Akbar Hussein Godi v Uganda
  • Bashasha Sharif v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 82 of 2018)
  • Naudubire Clement v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 41 of 2017)
  • Mbunya Godfrey v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 4 of 2011)
  • Kato Kajubi v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 173 of 2012)
  • Okello Geoffrey v Uganda [2017] UGSC 37
  • Twinomuhangi Dominic v Uganda [2025] UGSC 40
  • Walakire Lawrence v Uganda [2025] UGSC 38
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.