Kyambadde & Anor v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 293 of 2014)

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

The Court of Appeal quashed the murder convictions of both appellants and set aside their sentences after finding the trial a nullity. A trial within a trial held on the admissibility of the first appellant's charge and caution statement produced no recorded ruling, and there was no evidence that the trial judge summed up to the assessors as mandatorily required by section 82(1) of the Trial on Indictments Act. Because the irregularities were caused by the court rather than the prosecution, and given the grave nature of the offence, the Court ordered a retrial of the first appellant and admitted him to bail. The second appellant was released, as the only evidence against him was the inadmissible statement.

Outcome

Convictions quashed and sentences set aside; second appellant released; first appellant ordered to be retried and admitted to bail

Facts

On 22 April 2009 at Kamiti Village, Masaka District, the deceased Yiga Yusuf sold his cow to one Kakooza Hussein and received UGX 300,000. That night the deceased and his wife, PW1, were attacked by armed assailants demanding the money from the sale. Despite the deceased's plea that he had left the money in town, the assailants beat him and PW1, and the assailants raped PW1. The deceased's body was found in the courtyard. The matter was reported to the LC1 Chairperson and then to police. Investigations led to the arrest and indictment of the appellants and others for murder. At trial, a trial within a trial was held on the admissibility of the first appellant's charge and caution statement, but no ruling was recorded. The conviction of the second appellant rested on that statement, though it did not mention him and there was no other implicating evidence.

Issues

1. Whether the absence of a ruling following a trial within a trial on the admissibility of a charge and caution statement rendered the trial a nullity.
2. Whether the absence of evidence of summing up to the assessors under section 82(1) of the Trial on Indictments Act rendered the trial a nullity.
3. Whether a retrial should be ordered where the conviction was set aside for material irregularity in the proceedings.
4. Whether the conviction of the second appellant could stand where it rested on the first appellant's improperly admitted charge and caution statement.

Orders

• The conviction of the appellants is quashed and the sentences are set aside.
• The appellant no.2 is released forthwith unless held on some other lawful charge.
• A re-trial of the appellant no.1 is ordered.
• The appellant no.1 is admitted to bail on condition that he produces 2 sureties to be approved by the Deputy Registrar, High Court of Uganda at Masaka.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (4)

• Penal Code Act s.188
• Penal Code Act s.189
• Trial on Indictments Act s.82(1)
• Rules of the Court of Appeal Rule 30(1)

Cases cited (4)

• Kifumante Henry v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
• Bogere Moses v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1997)
• Sam Ekolu v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 15 of 1994)
• Fatehali Manji v The Republic [1966] 1 EA 343

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.

• Acam Susan v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 193 of 2019)

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