Wakilii

Akbar Hussein Godi v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 03 of 2013)

Supreme Court · [2013] UGSC 28 · 2013 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Second criminal appeal from a Court of Appeal decision affirming a High Court conviction for murder
Decision
Appeal dismissed; conviction for murder and sentence of 25 years' imprisonment upheld.

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 28 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 28 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Citations steady — 29 citing cases on record, 8 in the most recent three data years. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 second appeal against a murder conviction founded on circumstantial evidence. It held that a first appellate court's duty to re-evaluate the whole of the evidence is rooted in the common law, and that the Court of Appeal had discharged that duty. On a second appeal, the Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact by the two courts below where there is evidence to support them, and is precluded from going into the sufficiency of that evidence. The circumstantial evidence — threats, telephone printouts, ballistics, soil analysis and conduct — was properly evaluated and was incompatible with any reasonable hypothesis other than guilt. The conviction and 25-year sentence were upheld.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; conviction for murder and sentence of 25 years' imprisonment upheld.

Facts

The appellant, a Member of Parliament, married the deceased, Rehema Caesar Nasur, in December 2007. Discord developed soon after the marriage, with the deceased complaining to relatives and friends that the appellant beat her and threatened to shoot her. The couple separated and the deceased moved to a hostel. On the evening of 4 December 2008, after responding to a telephone call apparently from the appellant, the deceased left home stating she was going for dinner with an undisclosed person. Later that night, near Lukojja village in Mukono, witnesses heard gunshots and a fracas; the deceased was found dead, having been shot. The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence: prior threats, telephone printouts placing the appellant in contact with the deceased and her sisters, ballistics evidence, blood on the appellant's vehicle seat, and soil analysis matching the scene to shoes recovered from his residence. The trial court convicted him of murder, finding his alibi destroyed, and sentenced him to 25 years' imprisonment.

Issues

  1. Whether the Justices of Appeal erred in upholding the conviction in the absence of satisfactory prosecution evidence to sustain the charge of murder.
  2. Whether the Court of Appeal failed to properly re-evaluate the evidence adduced at trial as a first appellate court, thereby occasioning a miscarriage of justice.
  3. Whether the Justices of Appeal engaged in speculation and conjecture to the prejudice of the appellant.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Decision of the Court of Appeal upheld.

Rules and key headnotes

Evidence — Circumstantial Evidence — Test for Conviction
In a case depending exclusively upon circumstantial evidence, the court must, before convicting, find that the inculpatory facts are incompatible with the innocence of the accused and incapable of explanation upon any other reasonable hypothesis than that of guilt.
Appeals — First Appellate Court — Duty to Re-evaluate Evidence
A first appellate court is under a common-law duty, independent of the rules of procedure, to subject the whole of the evidence to a fresh and exhaustive scrutiny and to reach its own conclusions on fact and law, while making due allowance for not having seen or heard the witnesses.
Appeals — Second Appellate Court — Concurrent Findings of Fact
On a second appeal, the court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact by the two courts below where there was evidence to support them; once competent evidence supports a finding of fact, it is not open to the second appellate court to go into the sufficiency of that evidence or the reasonableness of the finding.
Evidence — Expert Evidence — Scrutiny
Expert evidence must be carefully scrutinised by the court and not accepted as unquestionable truth.
Appeals — Grounds of Appeal — Form and Particularity
A ground of appeal must be framed concisely and with sufficient particularity as required by Rule 62(2) of the Supreme Court Rules; a vaguely worded ground that fails to specify the points alleged to be wrongly decided is liable to be disallowed.

Legislation cited (5)

  • Court of Appeal Rules r.30(1)
  • Court of Appeal Rules r.29(1)
  • Supreme Court Rules r.30(1)
  • Supreme Court Rules r.62(2)
  • Chief Justice's Practice Direction No. 02 of 2005

Cases cited (18)

  • Bogere Moses v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 01 of 1997)
  • Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
  • Simmon Musoke v R (1958) EA 715
  • Okethi Okale & Others v Republic (1965) EA 554
  • Mutesasira Musoke v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 2009)
  • Fr. N. Begumisa & Others v E. Tibebaga (Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2003)
  • Coghlan v Cumberland (1898) 1 Ch 704
  • Pandya v R (1957) EA 336
  • Ruwala v R (1957) EA 570
  • Mohamed Ali Hasham v R (1941) 8 EACA 93
  • R v Hassan bin Said (1942) 9 EACA 62
  • Uganda v Kabali (1975) EA 185
  • Bakare v The State (1985) LRC (Cr) 179
  • Selle v Associated Motors (1968) EA 123
  • Teper v R (1952) 2 All ER 447
  • Andrea Obonyo & Others v R (1962) EA 542
  • Cpl. Waswa & Another v Uganda (Criminal Appeal Nos. 48 and 49 of 1995)
  • Republic v Thomas Gilbert Cholmondeley (High Court of Kenya Criminal Case No. 55 of 2006)

Cases citing this judgment (28)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Akbar Hussein Godi v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 03 of 2013) [2013] UGSC 28 (26 July 2013)
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.