Abdalla Mukasa v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 34 of 1991)
Observed later treatment
No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.
Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.
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 the appeal against conviction for aggravated robbery. It held there was admissible evidence of recognition: the appellant was the nephew of a victim's wife and well known to the family, identified by lamplight in two houses and during a long moonlit walk. The child witness's evidence required corroboration, which was found in the consistent evidence of Swaibu and his wife. The alibi and alleged grudge were rejected as insufficient to displace the prosecution case proved beyond reasonable doubt. A theft and the use of a fired gun were clearly established. On sentence, medical and the appellant's own evidence showed he was over 18 when the robbery was committed, so the prescribed death sentence was lawful.
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; conviction for aggravated robbery and sentence of death confirmed.
Facts
On the night of 21 April 1988, Swaibu Majwara's house was attacked by the appellant and two men in army uniform. The appellant, the nephew of Swaibu's wife Jaweria, held Jaweria at gunpoint and demanded money; Swaibu handed over money and a radio cassette while a tadoba lamp burned in the room. A bullet was fired past Swaibu's shoulder. The intruders then forced Swaibu to lead them to his father's shop, where Muzamil was made to light a lamp and goods and cash were taken. Swaibu was compelled to carry the bag on a long walk before being released. Swaibu reported to the R.C. Chairman the next day but delayed a general report to prevent the appellant fleeing. The appellant was arrested on 14 May 1988 with a new radio and bicycle. His alibi was that he had been curing an insane person elsewhere and was paid, using the money to buy those items; he also alleged a grudge because he refused to teach Swaibu native medicine.
Issues
- Whether the prosecution evidence of recognition identified the appellant as a participant in the robbery beyond reasonable doubt.
- Whether the evidence of the young witness Muzamil required corroboration and whether such corroboration existed.
- Whether the appellant's alibi and allegation of a grudge raised a reasonable doubt as to his guilt.
- Whether a theft and the use of a deadly weapon were established.
- Whether the appellant was over 18 years of age at the time of the offence so that the death sentence was lawful.
Orders
- Appeal against conviction dismissed.
- Appeal against sentence dismissed.
- Conviction and sentence of death confirmed.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (2)
Cases cited (2)
- R v Mohamed Bin Allui (1942) 9 EACA 72
- R v Turnbull (1976) 63 Cr App R 132; [1976] 3 WLR 445; [1976] 3 All ER 549
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.