Khemis & Another v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 17 of 2000)

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 conviction for capital robbery, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. It held that the two courts below had not erred in accepting the identification evidence of the complainants, given bright moonlight, voice recognition and prolonged observation, and that the trial judge had properly cautioned himself before relying on a single identifying witness against the second appellant. The Court further held that a first appellate court is required to re-appraise the evidence as a whole to test whether the trial court's conclusions are sound, not to analyse it 'line by line'; such word-by-word re-evaluation is undesirable. The convictions and death sentences were upheld.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; convictions for capital robbery and sentences of death confirmed.

Facts

On the night of 10–11 December 1995 in Kagote village, Fort Portal, three armed robbers attacked the home of Byaruhanga (PW2) and his wife Fatuma (PW3), who ran a shop. The robbers banged through the doors, shot Fatuma in the arm, and demanded money. Byaruhanga was beaten, tied with his shirt, and led to his banana plantation on the pretext of recovering hidden money, from where he escaped naked and raised an alarm. Fatuma remained at the scene and observed the robbers for a long period. The complainants recognised the first appellant, the village LC1 Chairman, by voice as the person who ordered that Byaruhanga be killed if he refused to cooperate, and by sight in bright moonlight; Fatuma identified the second appellant, the first appellant's son and a village mate, outside the house. Both appellants were arrested while sleeping in their homes; no stolen property was recovered. They raised alibis and the first appellant alleged he had been falsely implicated due to grudges arising from his role as LC1 Chairman.

Issues

1. Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the appellants were properly identified and that their alibis were destroyed.
2. Whether the Court of Appeal, as a first appellate court, failed to properly re-evaluate the evidence by not analysing it line by line.

Orders

• Appeal dismissed.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (3)

• Penal Code Act — capital robbery (section number illegible in source due to OCR)
• Trial on Indictments Decree s.64
• Court of Appeal Rules r.29(1)(a)

Cases cited (1)

• Roria v Republic [1967] EA 583

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.

• Namuddu and 5 Others v Compassion International (Civil Appeal No. 154 of 2014)

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