Muwonge & 2 Others v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 158 of 2018)

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

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 allowed the appeal against convictions for murder. It held that the testimony of PW1, PW6 and PW7 — recounting what the escaped co-accused (A1) had told them — was hearsay and inadmissible against the appellants under s.59 of the Evidence Act, since none of those witnesses perceived the offence. The charge and caution statement of A1, who escaped custody and never testified, was inadmissible against the appellants because it could not be tested by cross-examination, and a co-accused's confession cannot serve as corroboration against co-accused. Although the alleged inconsistencies were minor and that ground failed, grounds 1 and 3 succeeded; the convictions were quashed and the sentences set aside.

Outcome

Convictions quashed and sentences set aside; appellants ordered released forthwith unless held on some other lawful charge.

Facts

Patrick Mugenyi, a cattle trader, was murdered after being lured to check on a bull. Livingstone Musisi (A1), a nephew of the deceased, allegedly conspired with the appellants to kill the deceased and rob the money he carried to buy cattle. The deceased's motorcycle was abandoned and its battery was found with A1. A1 pleaded guilty through plea bargaining and was sentenced to five years' imprisonment, but escaped from prison before the appellants' trial. The appellants were convicted of murder largely on the basis of A1's charge and caution statement and the testimony of PW1, PW6 and PW7, who recounted what A1 had told them implicating the appellants. None of these witnesses personally witnessed the killing, and A1 never testified at the appellants' trial, so his statement was never tested by cross-examination. The trial judge had acquitted A5 because the same statement was unsupported as against him.

Issues

1. Whether the trial judge erred in relying on hearsay evidence to convict the appellants.
2. Whether the trial judge erred in failing to evaluate inconsistencies and contradictions in the prosecution case.
3. Whether the trial judge erred in relying on the charge and caution statement of a co-accused who escaped custody and never testified at the appellants' trial.
4. Whether the sentence of 45 years' imprisonment was manifestly harsh and excessive.

Orders

• Appeal allowed.
• Convictions of the appellants quashed.
• Sentences set aside.
• Immediate release of the appellants ordered unless held on some other lawful charge.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (11)

• Penal Code Act s.188
• Penal Code Act s.189
• Evidence Act Cap 6 s.24
• Evidence Act Cap 6 s.30
• Evidence Act Cap 6 s.31
• Evidence Act Cap 6 s.51
• Evidence Act Cap 6 s.57
• Evidence Act Cap 6 s.59
• Evidence Act Cap 6 s.157
• Court of Appeal Rules r.30(1)
• Constitution (Sentencing Guidelines for Courts of Judicature) (Practice) Directions 2013

Cases cited (26)

• Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
• Uganda v Adrama Wilfred Ozee and Another (Criminal Session Case No. 36 of 2015)
• Candiga v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 23 of 2012)
• Anyangu v R [1968] EA 239
• Kizza Abye Bernard v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 143 of 2001)
• Aharikundira Yustina v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 27 of 2005)
• Oyita Sam v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 307 of 2013)
• Francis Bualatum v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 48 of 2011)
• Kakubi Paul and Muramuzi David v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 126 of 2008)
• Nalule Sara v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 003 of 2013)
• Alfred Tajar v Uganda (EACA Criminal Appeal No. 167 of 1969)
• Clement Namulambo & Another v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1978)
• Livingstone Shabani Bin Donaldi v R (1940) EACA
• Kiggundu John v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 180 of 2009)
• Kingera Robert Okidi v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 200 of 2017)
• Omaria Chandia v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 23 of 2001)
• R v Horncastle & Others [2009] UKSC 14
• Walusimbi & 3 Others v Uganda [1994] UGSC 6
• R v Aryato s/o Ochulura (1936) 3 EACA 120
• Bekubye Muzamiru v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 56 of 2015)
• Magero Patrick and Another v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 6 of 2019)
• Semaganda Spertio and Another v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 456 of 2016)
• Kintu & Others v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 01 of 2009)
• John Serumaga and 3 Others v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 31 of 1996)
• Sseruuma Jude v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 156 of 2018)
• Serapio Tinkamalire v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 27 of 1949)

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