Ssekitoleko & 2 Ors v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No.127 of 2012)

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, on first appeal, re-evaluated the evidence and upheld the murder convictions of all three appellants. It held that the trial judge properly conducted a trial within a trial and correctly admitted the retracted and repudiated charge and caution statements, which were corroborated by independent evidence. The court found the appellants shared a common intention to kill the deceased and each played a role in executing the planned killing, making each a principal offender. On sentence, the court held that 28 years imprisonment for murder was legal, not manifestly excessive, and not based on any wrong principle, so there was no basis to interfere. The appeal was dismissed and both conviction and sentence confirmed.

Outcome

Convictions and 28-year sentences for murder confirmed for each appellant; appeal dismissed

Facts

On 14 May 2010 the second appellant came to the deceased's home claiming to seek land to buy. He went drinking with the deceased and returned late at night, sleeping in the same room and bed. The second appellant carried a black kavera. During the night the deceased's daughter (PW1) heard snoring; she and her brother found the deceased injured with head wounds, and the second appellant had left. The deceased died. The second appellant was arrested that morning carrying a hammer with blood on it in a black kavera and the deceased's shoes. In a charge and caution statement he explained he had been hired by the first appellant, promised 600,000/= to kill the deceased over land grudges. After the killing he took the deceased's shoes to the third appellant, who gave him 10,000/= and waragi and assured him of payment. The three appellants had negotiated the killing together. The first appellant was the deceased's brother and the third his sister.

Issues

1. Whether the prosecution proved participation of each appellant in the murder.
2. Whether the appellants were properly convicted on the principle of common intention and joint offenders.
3. Whether the third appellant was properly convicted on the basis of the retracted charge and caution statements of the first and second appellants.
4. Whether the sentence of 28 years imprisonment was excessive and warranted appellate interference.

Orders

• Appeal dismissed.
• Conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court on each appellant confirmed.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (2)

• Evidence Act (Cap.6) s.24
• Rules of the Court of Appeal Rule 30(1)(a)

Cases cited (8)

• Walugembe Henry and Others v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 39 of 2003)
• Rashidi vs Republic (1969) EA 138
• Tuwamoi v Uganda (1967) E.A. 84
• Charles Komwiswa vs. Uganda [1979] HCB 86
• Kyalimpa Edward v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1995)
• R vs De Haviland (1983) 5 Cr. App. R(s) 109
• Ogalo s/o Owoura vs. R.(1954) 21 EA.C.A.270
• R Mohamedali Jamal (1948) 15 E.A.C.A 126

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.

• Serunkuma & 5 Ors v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 0147 of 2015)

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