Wakilii

Katuramu v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 2 of 1998)

Supreme Court · [1998] UGSC 14 · 1998 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Second criminal appeal from Court of Appeal decision confirming a High Court conviction and death sentence for aggravated robbery
Decision
Appeal dismissed; conviction and death sentence for aggravated robbery confirmed

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 2 (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 2 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. 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

On a second appeal against conviction for aggravated robbery, the Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeal had properly re-evaluated the identification evidence of the sole identifying witness. A court may convict on the evidence of a single identifying witness alone, provided it warns itself of the danger of mistaken identity and, where possible, looks for corroboration; corroboration is only an aid to certainty, not an absolute requirement even where conditions are difficult. The conditions here favoured correct identification, so corroboration was unnecessary. The appeal was dismissed and the conviction and death sentence confirmed.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; conviction and death sentence for aggravated robbery confirmed

Facts

On the night of 21 October 1990, a group of intruders attacked the home of Yovan Kyalimpa at Nyantungo village, Mwenge County, Kabalore District. After the family's goats were let out and made noise, Kyalimpa went outside with a lantern and was accosted, ordered to lie down, and struck on the head, sustaining a cut wound; he was later speared in the arm. Two intruders entered the house and stole household goods. Inside, Kyalimpa's 15-year-old son Daniel (PW2), thinking his father had returned, found a stranger squatting near a cupboard putting glasses and cups into a gunny bag. PW2 recognised the stranger as the appellant, who was already known to him as a person who frequented the village and was related by marriage; light was provided by a todoba. The appellant admitted prior acquaintance. The appellant was convicted of aggravated robbery and sentenced to death, the conviction resting on PW2's sole identification evidence.

Issues

  1. Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the evidence of a single identifying witness did not require corroboration in the circumstances of the case.
  2. Whether the Court of Appeal failed to subject the entire evidence to fresh scrutiny as a first appellate court.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Conviction and sentence of death confirmed.

Rules and key headnotes

Identification — Single Identifying Witness — Whether Corroboration Required
A court may convict on the evidence of a single identifying witness alone; corroboration is not an absolute requirement even where the conditions of identification were difficult, but the court must warn itself of the danger of mistaken identity and, where possible, look for corroborating or supportive evidence to be sure no mistake has occurred.
Identification — Conditions Favouring Correct Identification — Relative Nature of Assessment
The favourableness or difficulty of conditions of identification, and the adequacy of time for observation, are relative questions with no scientific yardstick; the court must determine from the totality of the conditions described in the evidence whether the witness was able to make a correct identification.
Appeals — Role of Second Appellate Court — Re-evaluation of Evidence
A second appellate court is not required to re-evaluate the evidence in the manner of a first appellate court except in the clearest of cases, such as where the first appellate court failed to perform its duty of exhaustive re-examination.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (8)

  • Roria v Republic (1967) EA 583
  • Ndyayakwa & Others v Uganda (1978) HCB 181
  • Okeno v Republic (1972) EA 32
  • Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
  • George William Kalyesubula v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 16 of 1977)
  • Abdala Nabulere & Another v Uganda (1979) HCB 77
  • Moses Kasana v Uganda (1992-93) HCB 47
  • Bogere Moses & Another v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1997)

Cases citing this judgment (2)

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.

Katuramu v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 2 of 1998) [1998] UGSC 14 (1 October 1998)
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.