Mulindwa and Anor v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 234 of 2011)

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 dismissed the appeal against conviction, holding that the trial Judge properly cautioned herself on the evidence of a single identifying witness, that the conditions for correct identification were favourable, and that PW1's evidence was corroborated by circumstantial evidence forming part of the same transaction. On sentence, the Court held the trial Judge was not bound to arithmetically deduct remand time because she sentenced in 2011, before the Rwabugande Moses decision of 2017 which has no retrospective effect. However, finding 45 years harsh, the Court set it aside, substituted 35 years, and after deducting 4 years on remand, imposed 31 years' imprisonment on each appellant.

Outcome

Convictions upheld; sentences reduced from 45 years to 31 years' imprisonment for each appellant after deducting remand time

Facts

The two appellants, together with two other men, attacked the deceased, Nabatanzi Annet, by forcefully entering her house at around midnight, assaulting her, hauling her outside into the compound, and hitting her on the head with a blunt object suspected to be a hammer, causing her instant death. PW1, the deceased's son, was the sole eyewitness. He testified that he knew the accused as former neighbours, that the tadooba (kerosene lamp) was burning when the assailants entered, and that after the lamp was blown out the assailants flashed torches, enabling him to identify them; he also heard the deceased shout out A1's name. Additional witnesses met the appellants near the scene shortly before and after the killing, one appellant having fresh blood on his shirt, and heard preparations for the attack. There was evidence of a pre-existing grudge over land and witchcraft allegations. The appellants disappeared and were arrested months and a year later respectively. The trial court convicted both of murder and sentenced each to 45 years' imprisonment.

Issues

1. Whether the trial Judge properly evaluated the evidence of the single identifying witness and supporting circumstantial evidence in convicting the appellants of murder.
2. Whether the sentence of 45 years' imprisonment was illegal for failure to arithmetically deduct the period spent on remand.
3. Whether the sentence of 45 years' imprisonment was harsh and manifestly excessive.

Orders

• The appeal against conviction is dismissed and the murder conviction for each appellant is upheld.
• The appeal against sentence is allowed and the sentence of the High Court is set aside and a sentence of 35 years imprisonment is substituted.
• Considering the period of 4 years spent on remand, each appellant is sentenced to a term of 31 years imprisonment to be served from 10 October 2011, the date of conviction.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (9)

• Penal Code Act Cap 120 s.188
• Penal Code Act Cap 120 s.189
• Evidence Act Cap 6 s.5
• Evidence Act Cap 6 s.7
• Evidence Act Cap 6 s.7(2)
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 23(8)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions Rule 30(1)(a)
• Judicature Act Cap 13 s.11
• Constitution (Sentencing Guidelines for Courts of Judicature) (Practice) Directions 2013 Guideline 6(c)

Cases cited (33)

• Bogere Moses v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1997)
• Abdala Nabulele & Another v Uganda (1979) HCB 77
• Kusemererwa and Another v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 83 of 2010)
• Rwabugande Moses v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 2014)
• Befeho Iddi v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 15 of 2017)
• Byamukama Herbert v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 21 of 2017)
• Ssekawoya Blasio v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 24 of 2014)
• Turyahabwe Ezra and 14 Others v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 50 of 2015)
• Pandya v R [1957] E.A 336
• Kifamunte v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
• Israel Epuku s/o Achouseu v R [1934] EACA 166
• Akol Patrick & Others v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 60 of 2002)
• Kazibwe Kassim v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 2003)
• Amisi Dhatemwa Alias Waibi v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 23 of 1977)
• Abdallah Bin Wendo and Another v R (1953), 20 EACA
• Roria v R (1967) E.A 583
• Bogere Charles v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1998)
• Teper v P. (1952) A.C. 480
• Simon Musoke v R (1958) E.A. 715
• Yowana Serwadda v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 11 of 1977)
• Abelle Asuma v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 66 of 2016)
• Kizito Senkula v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 24 of 2001)
• Kabuye Senyawo v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 2 of 2002)
• Katende Ahamed v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 6 of 2004)
• Bukenya Joseph v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 2010)
• Kamya Johnson Wavamuno v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 16 of 2000)
• Kiwalabye Bernard v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 143 of 2001)
• Kalyango Achileo and Another v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 637 of 2015)
• Aharikundira Yustina v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 27 of 2015)
• Muhwezi Bayon v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 198 of 2013)
• Kisitu Majaidin alias Mpata v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 28 of 2007)
• Bukenya v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 51 of 2007)
• Sunday v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 103 of 2006)

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.

• Ruzira v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 249 of 2019)

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