Nasasira Grace & Ors v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 250 of 2017)

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 allowed the second appeal, holding that the General Court Martial lacked jurisdiction. Section 184 of the UPDF Act fell outside the service offences set out in sections 120-178, so the 3rd to 6th appellants, who were not serving soldiers, should not have been charged. Further, the General Court Martial was not duly constituted because its composition changed four times without maintaining the coram and lacked a non-commissioned officer, contrary to sections 197 and 198 of the UPDF Act, violating the non-derogable right to a fair hearing. The convictions and sentences were set aside and quashed and the appellants ordered released forthwith.

Outcome

Convictions and sentences set aside and quashed; appellants ordered released forthwith

Facts

Between March and May 2013, in Mityana and Kampala Districts, the 1st and 2nd appellants allegedly consciously failed to disclose to proper authorities vital information about recruitment of people for activities prejudicial to the security of Uganda, founding a charge of treachery contrary to section 129(b) of the UPDF Act. The 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th appellants were alleged to have aided and abetted the 1st and 2nd appellants in committing treachery contrary to section 184(1)(b) and (c) of the UPDF Act. The General Court Martial convicted all appellants and sentenced each to 15 years imprisonment per count to be served concurrently. The Court Martial Appeal Court upheld the convictions and sentences. The 3rd to 6th appellants were not serving soldiers. The composition of the General Court Martial changed four times during the proceedings, and there was no non-commissioned officer on the panel.

Issues

1. Whether the General Court Martial had jurisdiction to try the appellants for the offences charged.
2. Whether non-serving soldiers could be charged with service offences under the UPDF Act.
3. Whether the General Court Martial was duly constituted as required by sections 197 and 198 of the UPDF Act.
4. Whether the conviction and sentence should stand given the procedural irregularities.

Orders

• Appeal allowed.
• Conviction of the appellants by the Court Martial Appeal Court set aside.
• Sentences quashed.
• Appellants to be set free forthwith.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (9)

• UPDF Act s.129(b)
• UPDF Act s.184(1)(b)(c)
• UPDF Act s.179
• UPDF Act s.197(1)(e)
• UPDF Act s.198(c)
• UPDF Act s.2
• UPDF Act ss.120-178
• Constitution of Uganda Article 28
• Constitution of Uganda Article 44(c)

Cases cited (4)

• Pandya V Republic (1957) EA 336
• Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
• Lt. Ambrose Ogwang v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 107 of 2013)
• Mohammed Mohammed Hamid v Roko Construction (Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2013)

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.

• Buchanan v Attorney General (MISCELLANEOUS CAUSE NO. 266 OF 2019)

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