Wakilii

Kasode & Anor v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 0419 of 2015)

Court of Appeal · [2020] UGCA 106 · 2020 Appeal Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First criminal appeal from High Court conviction and sentence for murder
Decision
Convictions upheld; sentences set aside as illegal and each appellant re-sentenced to 21½ years imprisonment.

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 Court of Appeal upheld the murder convictions, holding that a conviction may lawfully be based on a cogent dying declaration even without corroboration, and that the deceased's repeated identification of the appellants by name, coupled with the fact that they were well known to him, rendered the declaration cogent. The Court rejected the trial Judge's reasoning that corroboration in respect of one accused corroborated the declaration against the co-accused, finding no such principle exists, but affirmed the convictions on the cogency of the declaration. The Court found the sentences illegal for failing to account for remand time, set them aside, and re-sentenced each appellant to 21½ years imprisonment.

Outcome

Convictions upheld; sentences set aside as illegal and each appellant re-sentenced to 21½ years imprisonment.

Facts

On the night of 20/21 June 2011 the deceased, Ahabwomugisha Caleb, left home and did not return. The next morning he was found lying injured at the roadside and was taken to hospital, where he could not speak and was vomiting blood. After about five hours of treatment he was able to speak and told his wife (PW1) and brother (PW2) that he had been assaulted by three assailants, two of whom he identified by name as the appellants, his neighbours. He described how he had gone to a bar, taken a drink, and been attacked shortly after leaving; the first appellant slapped him, after which the second appellant and an unidentified person assaulted him. The deceased died from a closed head injury with shock and haemorrhage. The second appellant was arrested in a banana plantation and did not attend the deceased's vigil. Blood-stained trousers recovered from his home were not tendered in evidence. The main evidence linking both appellants to the killing was the deceased's dying declaration.

Issues

  1. Whether the trial Judge erred in convicting the appellants solely on an uncorroborated dying declaration.
  2. Whether the sentences were illegal for failing to take into account the period spent on remand.
  3. Whether the sentences of 20 and 22 years imprisonment were harsh.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed in part.
  • Ground 1 relating to conviction fails; the convictions are upheld.
  • Grounds 2 and 3 relating to sentence succeed.
  • Sentences imposed by the trial Court set aside for illegality.
  • Each appellant sentenced to 21½ years imprisonment after deducting 3½ years spent on remand.

Rules and key headnotes

Criminal Evidence — Dying Declarations — Whether Corroboration Required
It is not a rule of law that a conviction cannot be based solely on a dying declaration; where the declaration is so cogent as to exclude any possibility of doubt or mistaken identification, it may found a conviction without corroboration.
Criminal Evidence — Dying Declarations — Cogency and Identification
A dying declaration is rendered cogent where the deceased repeatedly names his assailants, describes the circumstances of the attack, was of clear mind when speaking, and where the assailants were well known to the deceased, thereby lessening the possibility of mistaken identification.
Criminal Evidence — Corroboration — Multiple Accused
There is no principle of law that corroboration of a dying declaration in respect of one accused person can serve as corroboration against a co-accused; the principle that corroboration in part corroborates the whole applies to a single witness's evidence, not across separate accused persons.
Criminal Evidence — Corroboration — Lies Told by Accused
Proved lies told on oath by an accused person are inconsistent with innocence and may amount to corroboration of other evidence, such as a dying declaration, in appropriate circumstances.
Sentencing — Remand Period — Article 23(8) of the Constitution
A sentence reached without taking into account the period spent by the convict on remand is illegal for contravening Article 23(8) of the Constitution and is liable to be set aside.
Sentencing — Murder — Consistency and Sentencing Range
Sentences for murder imposed by the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal are, save in exceptional cases, usually in the range of 20 to 30 years imprisonment, and consistency in sentencing should be maintained.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (20)

  • Oyee George v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 0159 of 2003)
  • Bogere Moses & Another v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1997)
  • Tukamuhebwa David Junior & Another v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 0059 of 2016)
  • Tindigwihura Mbahe v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 09 of 1987)
  • Juma s/o Ramadhani vs. Republic, Court of Appeal Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1993
  • Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
  • Pandya vs. R. (1957) E.A. 336
  • Okeno vs. Republic (1972) E.A. 32
  • Charles B. Bitwire v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 23 of 1985)
  • Mibulo Edward v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 1995)
  • R. v Eligu S/O Odel and Epangu S/O Ewunya (1943) 10 EACA 90
  • Pius Jasunga V. R. (1954) 21 EACA 331
  • Mande v. R. (1965) EA 193
  • Ntambala Fred v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 0034 of 2015)
  • Uganda v George Wilson Simbwa (Criminal Appeal No. 37 of 1995)
  • Chesakit Matayo v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 95 of 2004)
  • Susan Kigula v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 2004)
  • R V Tarbhai Mohamedbhai (1943) 10 EACA 60
  • Aharikundira Yustina v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 27 of 2015)
  • Muganga Richard & 5 Others v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 153 of 2012)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kasode & Anor v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 0419 of 2015) [2020] UGCA 106 (13 October 2020)
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.