Wakilii

Ojangole v Uganda [2001] UGSC 10

Supreme Court · 2001 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Second criminal appeal from the Court of Appeal, which had dismissed an appeal against a High Court conviction.
Decision
Appeal dismissed; conviction for murder upheld.

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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

On a second appeal in a murder conviction, the Supreme Court considered whether the appellant had been correctly identified at the scene and whether his alibi had been properly disproved. The Court noted that three eye witnesses who knew the appellant well had identified him, that the trial Judge believed their evidence, and that the Court of Appeal had accepted those findings. Finding ample evidence to support the conviction and that the Court of Appeal had directed itself properly on the evidence and the law, the Supreme Court held it had not been persuaded the Court of Appeal erred. Both grounds of appeal failed and the appeal was dismissed.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; conviction for murder upheld.

Facts

The appellant and a co-accused were tried in the High Court at Soroti on an indictment containing two counts: the murder of the deceased, Ojilong Constant, and capital robbery contrary to sections 272 and 273(2) of the Penal Code. The prosecution called four witnesses, including a medical doctor who carried out the postmortem and three witnesses who testified as eye witnesses: the wife of the deceased (PW2), a brother of the deceased (PW3), and a third witness (PW5). The three eye witnesses knew the appellant well. The appellant gave an unsworn statement raising a defence of alibi, claiming that on the night of the murder and robbery he was at his duty station, Bugema Army Barracks in Mbale District, and not at the scene. The trial Judge believed the prosecution evidence, found that the alibi had been disproved, convicted the appellant of murder, acquitted him of capital robbery but convicted him of simple robbery, and acquitted the co-accused.

Issues

  1. Whether the Court of Appeal erred in accepting the trial Judge's finding on the identification of the appellant at the scene of the crime.
  2. Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the finding that the prosecution had destroyed the appellant's defence of alibi.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.

Rules and key headnotes

Criminal Evidence — Identification — Witnesses Who Knew the Accused
Where eye witnesses who knew the accused well identify him at the scene of the crime and the trial court believes their evidence, an appellate court will not interfere with a concurrent finding on identification absent persuasive grounds that the courts below erred.
Defences — Alibi — Burden on Prosecution to Disprove
An accused who raises a defence of alibi assumes no burden of proving it; where the prosecution adduces credible evidence placing the accused at the scene of the crime, the alibi is disproved and the defence is destroyed.
Appeals — Second Appeal — Concurrent Findings of Fact
On a second appeal, the Supreme Court will not disturb concurrent findings of fact by the trial court and the Court of Appeal where there is ample evidence to support the conviction and the lower courts directed themselves properly on the evidence and the law.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (3)

  • Abdulla Nabulere & Ors v Uganda (1979) HCB 77
  • Okethi Okale v Republic (1965) EA 555
  • Siraji Sajjabi v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 31 of 1989)

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.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Ojangole v Uganda [2001] UGSC 10 (23 March 2001)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.