Wakilii

Alex Dinasoni alias Chandiru v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No.46 of 2018)

Supreme Court · [2026] UGSC 4 · 2026 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Second criminal appeal to the Supreme Court; application for leave to argue a new ground of appeal not raised before the first appellate court
Decision
Application for leave to argue a new ground denied; appeal dismissed; High Court record ordered rectified

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

On a second appeal from a murder conviction, the Supreme Court refused leave to argue a new ground alleging that the appellant's plea was taken in a language he did not understand, contrary to his fair-hearing right under Article 28(3)(b). Comparing the typed record with the trial judge's handwritten notes, the Court preferred the handwritten notes, which showed the charge was read and explained in Luganda, the language the appellant told the court he understood. Finding no illegality or violation of fair hearing, the Court held the point fell outside the exceptions to the rule against raising new arguments on appeal, denied leave, and dismissed the appeal.

Outcome

Application for leave to argue a new ground denied; appeal dismissed; High Court record ordered rectified

Facts

The appellant was married to the deceased, Nabwire Night, with whom he lived in Mukono District; their relationship was marked by repeated assaults. On 25 May 2013 the appellant told a witness he would kill his wife for stealing from him. That night the deceased reported an assault to the LC1 Chairman, who failed to resolve it. At Bukusa Trading Centre the appellant was seen assaulting the deceased, kicking her so she fell, then fleeing; the Chairman found her dead. The appellant was charged with murder, pleaded guilty, was convicted on 17 March 2014 and sentenced to 32 years' imprisonment. The Court of Appeal reduced the sentence to 27 years and 2 months. On second appeal to the Supreme Court, the appellant sought leave to argue that his plea had been taken in a language he did not understand, no interpreter being recorded though he is Lugbara by tribe. The trial judge's handwritten notes showed the charge was read and explained in Luganda, which the appellant said he understood.

Issues

  1. Whether the appellant should be granted leave under rule 70(1)(a) of the Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules to argue a ground of appeal not raised before the first appellate court.
  2. Whether the alleged irregularity in plea taking, said to violate the appellant's right to a fair hearing, fell within the exceptions to the rule that an appellate court will not consider an argument raised for the first time on appeal.
  3. Whether there was any irregularity or illegality in the plea taking process at the High Court trial.

Orders

  • The High Court record of proceedings in Jinja Criminal Session Case No. 194 of 2013 be rectified to correctly reflect what transpired during plea taking.
  • The appellant's application for leave to argue a ground of appeal not considered before the first appellate court is denied.
  • Criminal Appeal No. 46 of 2018 is dismissed.

Rules and key headnotes

Appeals — New Grounds — Leave to Argue Points Not Raised Below
An appellate court will not consider an argument raised for the first time on appeal, and a second appellate court cannot delve into a matter that was not canvassed before the first appellate court, save in recognised exceptions such as where an illegality is disclosed.
Fair Hearing — Article 28(3)(b) — Plea Taking in a Language the Accused Understands
Where the record shows that the charge was read and explained to the accused in a language he confirmed to the trial court that he understood, no violation of the right to a fair hearing under Article 28(3)(b) arises, even if the accused belongs to a different tribe and no interpreter is named on the record.
Court Records — Conflict Between Typed Proceedings and Trial Judge's Handwritten Notes
Where the typed record of proceedings is at variance with the trial judge's handwritten notes, the court will prefer the handwritten notes of the presiding judge, the margin of error being higher for the transcribing person than for the presiding officer of the trial.
Memorandum of Appeal — Validity — Inherent Power to Achieve Ends of Justice
An appeal is instituted by filing a memorandum of appeal substantially in the prescribed form, not by filing a supplementary memorandum; but where only a supplementary memorandum has been filed, the court may, under its inherent power and Article 126(2)(e), adopt and validate it as the memorandum of appeal in the interests of justice.

Legislation cited (10)

Cases cited (5)

  • Kisugu Quarries v Administrator General (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 10 of 1998)
  • Adan v Republic [1973] EA 445
  • Uganda v Guster Nsubuga & Another (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 92 of 2018)
  • Sekajja Fred v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 78 of 2020)
  • Rwabugande v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 2014)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Alex Dinasoni alias Chandiru v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No.46 of 2018) [2026] UGSC 4 (10 February 2026)
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.