Wakilii

Sekandi & Anor v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 246 of 2014)

Court of Appeal · [2019] UGCA 180 · 2019 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Second criminal appeal from the High Court sitting in its appellate jurisdiction, against conviction and sentence for obtaining money by false pretence
Decision
Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence for obtaining money by false pretence upheld

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

On a second appeal limited to matters of law, the Court of Appeal held that its role is to determine whether the first appellate court properly applied the principles of re-evaluating evidence. The Court found the first appellate Judge had fully re-evaluated the evidence and made no error. The recall of PW1 was lawful under section 100 of the Magistrates Courts Act and was done by consent of both parties, with the appellants raising no objection. The evidence established intention to defraud, as the appellants had no intention of selling the land to the complainant. The appeal was found to have no merit and was dismissed.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence for obtaining money by false pretence upheld

Facts

The first and second appellants are son and mother. The complainant agreed to buy a plot of land at Church Zone, Kabowa, sold to him by the first appellant. The total purchase price was 25,000,000/=. The complainant made three payments: a first installment of 3,000,000/= to the first appellant with a sale agreement executed; a second installment of 10,000,000/= paid to the first appellant in the presence of the second appellant; and a third installment paid to the second appellant in the absence of the first appellant. The second appellant, together with two others, signed as witnesses to the sale. Evidence showed the appellants had no intention of selling the land to the complainant, including evidence that the chairman (PW4) had witnessed an agreement and that the same land had been sold to different people. The complainant was falsely told the chairman had died.

Issues

  1. Whether the first appellate Judge failed to re-appraise the evidence before the trial court and thereby wrongly upheld the conviction.
  2. Whether the trial Magistrate acted unlawfully in recalling PW1 to testify after his earlier evidence had been recorded.
  3. Whether the prosecution proved the ingredient of intention to defraud for the offence of obtaining money by false pretence.

Orders

  • This appeal has no merit and is accordingly dismissed.

Rules and key headnotes

Criminal Procedure — Second Appeal — Scope of Second Appellate Court's Powers
On a second appeal from a decision of the High Court exercising its appellate jurisdiction, the appellate court may only entertain matters of law and must determine whether the first appellate court properly applied the principle of re-evaluating the evidence; it does not re-evaluate the evidence afresh except in the clearest of cases.
Evidence — Recall of Witnesses — Power Under Magistrates Courts Act s.100
A magistrate's court may, at any stage of a trial, recall and re-examine a witness already examined where that witness's evidence appears essential to the just decision of the case, and such recall is lawful, particularly where done by consent of both parties without objection.
Obtaining Money by False Pretence — Proof of Intention to Defraud
The ingredient of intention to defraud in the offence of obtaining money by false pretence may be inferred from the accused's conduct, including the absence of any genuine intention to sell or transfer the property for which payment was obtained.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (8)

  • Serwano Mawanda v Regina (Criminal Appeal No. 141 of 1961)
  • R v Baskerville (1916) 2 KB 358
  • R v Jackson (1953) 1 All ER 872
  • Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
  • Pandya v R [1957] EA 336
  • Okeno v Republic [1972] EA 32
  • Charles Bitwire v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 23 of 1985)
  • Kairu v Uganda [1978] HCB 123

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Sekandi & Anor Vs Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 246 of 2014) [2019] UGCA 180 (9 July 2019)
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.