Karakire v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 504 of 2015)

Observed later treatment

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.

Holding

On a second appeal against the appellant's conviction for soliciting and receiving gratification under the Anti-Corruption Act, the Court of Appeal held that where prosecution evidence is unchallenged in cross-examination the court may infer it is true against the accused unless inherently incredible or possibly untrue. The appellant, a magistrate, had declined repeated opportunities to cross-examine, and his unsubstantiated defence (uncalled witness Frank Baine) was incredible. The absence of tape-recording evidence and the unmarked extra cash did not undermine the prosecution case. Both lower courts properly evaluated the evidence; the appeal was dismissed and the conviction and sentence upheld.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; conviction and three-year concurrent sentence upheld

Facts

The appellant, a Grade II Magistrate at Kyazanga and Lyantonde Magistrate Courts, was approached by Taremwa George (PW3) to help delay the issuance of a warrant of arrest against him in a complaint of obtaining money by false pretences. The appellant offered to delay the case by one month for two million shillings, and after bargaining agreed to one million shillings. PW3 reported the matter to the Inspectorate of Government (IGG), which set a trap. The appellant was arrested upon receiving the marked one million shillings, the serial numbers matching those recorded by the IGG. He was also found with a further UGX 1,700,000 of personal, unmarked money. The appellant was charged on two counts of soliciting and receiving gratification under sections 2(a) and 26 of the Anti-Corruption Act 2009, convicted, and sentenced to three years' imprisonment to run concurrently. He declined repeated opportunities to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses. In defence he claimed the money was his tenant Frank Baine's, but did not call Baine as a witness.

Issues

1. Whether the first appellate Judge failed to properly re-evaluate the evidence on record and thereby reached a wrong conclusion.
2. Whether the prosecution proved the charges of soliciting and receiving gratification beyond reasonable doubt where the prosecution witnesses were not cross-examined.

Orders

• Appeal dismissed.
• Decision of the first appellate court upheld.
• Conviction and sentence upheld.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (6)

• Anti-Corruption Act 2009 s.2(a)
• Anti-Corruption Act 2009 s.26
• Penal Code Act s.308
• Judicature Act cap 13 s.11
• Criminal Procedure Act s.45(1)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions r.32(2)

Cases cited (8)

• Woolmington v DPP [1935] AC 463
• Oketh Okale v R [1965] EA 555
• Sekitooleko v Uganda [1967] EA 531
• Beatrice Kobusinge v Fiona Nyakaana & Another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 18 of 2001)
• Kifamunte v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
• Mohamed Ali Hasham v R (1941) 8 EACA 93
• R v Hassan bin Said (1942) 9 EACA 62
• James Sewaabiri & Another v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 1990)

Cases citing this judgment (1)

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.

• Nabunga Juma v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 36 of 2019)

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