Sam Ssensalire v Uganda (Criminal Miscellaneous Application 236 of 2026)
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.
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 applicant, convicted and imprisoned, sought an extension of time to appeal under section 28(6) of the Criminal Procedure Code Act. The court held that good cause must relate to the applicant's inability to take the required step within time, not merely to the sympathy his position attracts or the arguability of the intended appeal. Indigence and incarceration operating together upon an unrepresented convict were capable of amounting to good cause, and did so on the facts. The State's non-opposition did not confer jurisdiction, but the delay of some months was fully explained, the intended grounds were arguable, and no prejudice to the respondent arose. Good cause having been shown, the extension was granted.
Outcome
Application allowed; time to lodge the notice and memorandum of appeal extended under section 28(6) of the Criminal Procedure Code Act.
Facts
The applicant, Sam Ssensalire, was convicted by the trial court in Criminal Case No. SUW/112 of 2025 on 27 April 2026. Under section 28(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code Act his notice of appeal fell due within fourteen days, that is by 11 May 2026, but he did not lodge it. He deposed that he was in prison and lacked the means to instruct counsel, and there was nothing on the record to show he had been informed of the appeal period or of the prison-lodgment procedure under section 30. His explanation was unchallenged. He indicated an intention to appeal on grounds that the trial court failed to evaluate the evidence, shifted the burden of proof onto him, and imposed a harsh and excessive sentence. The delay was measured in months. The respondent, through the Chief State Attorney, did not oppose the application and asserted no prejudice.
Issues
- Whether the applicant showed good cause under section 28(6) of the Criminal Procedure Code Act to justify an extension of time to lodge his appeal against conviction and sentence.
Orders
- The application is allowed.
- The time within which the applicant may lodge his notice of appeal and memorandum of appeal against the decision in Criminal Case No. SUW/112 of 2025 is extended under section 28(6) of the Criminal Procedure Code Act.
- The applicant shall lodge his memorandum of appeal, together with his written submissions, within fourteen days from the date of this ruling.
- The Registrar shall cause a copy of this ruling to be served on the applicant through the officer in charge of the prison in which he is held, and shall furnish the applicant and his counsel with a copy of the record of proceedings and the judgment of the trial court.
- Upon compliance with order (c), the Registrar shall fix the appeal for hearing.
- No order as to costs.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (7)
Cases cited (7)
- Rosette Kizito v Administrator General & Others (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 9 of 1986)
- Sabiiti Kachope & 3 Others v Margaret Kamuje (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 31 of 1997)
- [1998] UGSC 20
- Pandya v R [1957] EA 336
- Woolmington v Director of Public Prosecutions [1935] AC 462
- Ssekitoleko v Uganda [1967] EA 531
- Kiwalabye Bernard v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 143 of 2001)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.