Katureebe & Another v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 41 of 2016)
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.
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 a murder conviction and sentence, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the second appellant, holding that common intention under section 20 of the Penal Code Act may be inferred from a participant's presence, conduct, and failure to dissociate himself from the acts of others, without any prior agreement. The Court held that the Court of Appeal's failure to deduct the period spent on remand, as required by Article 23(8) of the Constitution, rendered the sentences illegal. Invoking section 7 of the Judicature Act, it set aside the 30 and 35-year terms, fixed an appropriate sentence of 30 years, and deducted 3½ years on remand, substituting 26½ years for each appellant from the date of conviction.
Outcome
Conviction upheld; sentences set aside and substituted with 26½ years' imprisonment for each appellant from the date of conviction.
Facts
The two appellants were brothers. The first appellant was a herdsman at the home of one Buteera; the second appellant was a cultivator. The deceased, a cattle trader, borrowed money to buy cows and went, accompanied by the second appellant, to negotiate at Buteera's home. After failing to agree on a price, the deceased left with Buteera's two sons, the first appellant and the second appellant. According to the second appellant's charge and caution statement, they escorted the deceased to a small valley where the elder son of Buteera cut the deceased on the neck with a panga, killing him. The deceased's body was later found in a forest. The second appellant fled the village, was traced and arrested in Mubende, and attempted to escape custody before being re-arrested. The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence and the appellants' charge and caution statements. The appellants were convicted of murder and sentenced to death; the Court of Appeal upheld the conviction and varied the sentence to terms of years.
Issues
- Whether the doctrine of common intention was properly applied to hold the second appellant liable for the murder.
- Whether the Court of Appeal's failure to take into account the period spent on remand under Article 23(8) of the Constitution rendered the sentences illegal.
- Whether the sentences should run from the date of conviction or the date of remand.
Orders
- Ground 3 (against conviction) fails; the conviction of the second appellant is upheld.
- The appeal partially succeeds on grounds 1 and 2 (against sentence).
- The sentences passed by the Court of Appeal are set aside.
- Each appellant is substituted with a sentence of 26½ years' imprisonment, to run from the date of conviction.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (6)
Cases cited (5)
- Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 7 of 1997)
- P.R. Pandya vs. R. (1957) E.A.
- Kairu v Uganda (1978) HCB 123
- R v Tabulayenka s/o Kirya and others (1943) 10 EACA 51
- Rwabugande Moses v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 2014)
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.
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.