Mujuni Apollo v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No.46 of 2000) (Criminal Appeal 46 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.
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 Supreme Court dismissed the appellant's second appeal against his conviction for defilement. It held that the Court of Appeal, as the first appellate court, had properly re-evaluated the evidence as a whole and reached its own conclusions that the complainant was defiled and that the evidence of PW2 and PW3 corroborated her evidence in material particulars. The Court emphasised that there is no set form of re-evaluation of evidence by a first appellate court; the manner varies according to the peculiar facts of each case. Finding ample evidence to support the conviction, the Court saw no merit in the appeal.
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence of 14 years' imprisonment for defilement upheld.
Facts
The appellant and a co-accused, Ruhangailyo, were jointly tried and convicted of defilement of the complainant (PW1), contrary to section 123(1) of the Penal Code Act. The appellant was sentenced to 14 years' imprisonment. Both convicted persons appealed to the Court of Appeal, which allowed Ruhangailyo's appeal but dismissed the appellant's appeal and upheld his conviction and sentence. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court, contending that the Court of Appeal had wrongly found corroboration of the complainant's evidence in the evidence of PW2 and PW3, and had failed to re-evaluate the evidence on record as required of a first appellate court.
Issues
- Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the evidence of PW2 and PW3 amply corroborated the complainant's evidence that she was defiled.
- Whether the Court of Appeal failed to re-evaluate the evidence on record as required of a first appellate court before upholding the conviction.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (2)
- Penal Code Act s.123(1)
- Court of Appeal Rules rule 29(1)(a)
Cases citing this judgment (3)
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.