Wakilii

Ssozi & Anor v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 247 of 2014)

Court of Appeal · [2019] UGCA 179 · 2019 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Second criminal appeal from High Court decision exercising appellate jurisdiction, originating from Chief Magistrate's Court conviction
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

The Court of Appeal, sitting as a second appellate court confined to questions of law, dismissed the appeal. It held that for the offence of obtaining money by false pretence under section 305 of the Penal Code Act, it is immaterial from whom the money was obtained; the appellants admitted receiving 7,600,000/= as consideration but failed to deliver the land, later selling it to another, which was fraudulent. The Court further held that civil and criminal proceedings may proceed concurrently, and a prior consent judgment in a related civil suit did not bar the criminal prosecution, particularly where the complainant was abroad, unaware of the consent, and had not withdrawn the charges.

Outcome

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

Facts

The appellants, a married couple, owned titled land at Kabowa Church zone. In January 2002 they agreed to sell part of it to Aida Naluwooza, who resides in Sweden. Aida directed her brother, Issa Serwanga, to inspect the land and pay for it. On 8 January 2002, 8,000,000/= was withdrawn; the appellants were paid 7,600,000/= and an acknowledgment was signed. An agreement was later written by the second appellant and witnessed by the first appellant in the presence of the LC Chairman. The appellants did not hand over the land and went into hiding. The matter was reported to police. Aida granted powers of attorney to Issa to pursue the case, and a civil suit (No. 207 of 2009) was filed, in which a consent judgment was entered on 7 June 2009. Evidence indicated the appellants sold the same land to another buyer despite the earlier sale. The appellants were arrested and charged with obtaining money by false pretence.

Issues

  1. Whether the High Court erred in upholding the appellants' conviction for obtaining money by false pretence from the complainant.
  2. Whether the existence of a prior civil suit and consent judgment barred the criminal prosecution of the appellants.

Orders

  • This appeal lacks merit and is dismissed accordingly.

Rules and key headnotes

Obtaining Money by False Pretence — Identity of Person from Whom Money Obtained Immaterial
In a charge of obtaining money by false pretence under section 305 of the Penal Code Act, it is immaterial from whom the money or property capable of being stolen was obtained; the offence is committed when a person, by false pretences and with intent to defraud, obtains money from any person.
Concurrent Civil and Criminal Proceedings — Prior Consent Judgment No Bar to Prosecution
The institution of civil proceedings, including the entry of a consent judgment arising from the same transaction, does not bar a criminal prosecution, since the standard of proof in civil matters differs from that required in criminal matters and both proceedings may run concurrently.
Second Appeal — Scope of Appellate Jurisdiction
On a second appeal from a decision of the High Court exercising its appellate jurisdiction, the Court of Appeal is confined to matters of law and may only determine whether the first appellate court applied the correct principles in re-evaluating the evidence; it has no discretion to hear additional evidence or to re-evaluate facts.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (5)

  • 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.

Ssozi & Anor Vs Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 247 of 2014) [2019] UGCA 179 (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.