Wakilii

Twinomugisha Alex alias Twine and Others v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 35 of 2002)

Supreme Court · [2003] UGSC 57 · 2003 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Second criminal appeal from a Court of Appeal decision affirming High Court convictions for two murders and sentences of death.
Decision
Appeals of all three appellants dismissed; murder convictions and sentences of death confirmed.

Observed later treatment

Treatment recorded in citing cases followed in 3 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.

Good law Followed in 3 cases and applied in 0 cases, with no adverse treatment recorded. Citations rising — 69 citing cases on record, 25 in the most recent three data years. 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

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals of all three appellants against their convictions for two murders and sentences of death. The 1st appellant's confession was voluntary and true; the recording officers' failure to countersign was an irregularity cured by the signature at the end of the statement. Identification at the scene and parade was reliable and corroborated the confession. PW15 and Mwesige were not accomplices, being employees obeying lawful orders without knowledge of the plot. The circumstantial evidence against the 2nd and 3rd appellants was incompatible with any reasonable hypothesis other than guilt, and the deceased's statements as to the cause of his death were admissible under section 30(a) of the Evidence Act.

Outcome

Appeals of all three appellants dismissed; murder convictions and sentences of death confirmed.

Facts

The 3rd appellant was Prime Minister and a Regent of Toro Kingdom and a prominent businessman. He was in conflict with members of the royal family, led by Prince Charles Kijanangoma, who sought his removal. Before travelling to Fort Portal for a court case, Prince Kijanangoma reported that the 3rd appellant had hired killers and paid Shs.6,000,000. On 25 March 1999, at Palace View Bar in Fort Portal, the 1st appellant shot and killed Prince Kijanangoma, and his companion shot dead the bar's nightwatchman, Stephen Kaganda alias Mulokole. The 1st appellant confessed to being hired by the 2nd appellant for Shs.5,000,000 plus fuel money. Circumstantial evidence showed the 2nd appellant secured and abandoned a Voice of Toro vehicle, and that the 3rd appellant, who owned the vehicle, financed and coordinated the killing and took steps to disguise and disappear the vehicle and to make witnesses disappear.

Issues

  1. Whether the 1st appellant's charge and caution statement was voluntary, true and properly recorded notwithstanding that neither recording officer countersigned after the suspect's signature.
  2. Whether the 1st appellant was properly identified at the scene of crime and at the identification parade.
  3. Whether the 1st appellant's defence of alibi was properly rejected.
  4. Whether the prosecution witnesses Nkoba (PW15) and Mwesige were accomplices whose evidence required corroboration.
  5. Whether the circumstantial evidence proved the guilt of the 2nd and 3rd appellants beyond reasonable doubt.
  6. Whether statements made by the deceased as to the cause of his death were admissible under section 30(a) of the Evidence Act.

Orders

  • The appeals by all three appellants are dismissed.
  • The convictions and sentences of death are confirmed.

Rules and key headnotes

Evidence — Confessions — Charge and Caution Statement — Failure of Recording Officer to Countersign
Failure by the recording officer to countersign a charge and caution statement after charging and cautioning the suspect is an irregularity that is cured by the recording officer's signature at the end of the statement and is not fatal to its admissibility.
Evidence — Confession of Co-accused — Use as Corroboration
The confession of a co-accused, once accepted as true, may lend credence to and corroborate other circumstantial evidence connecting another accused to the crime, though it cannot found a conviction on its own.
Evidence — Accomplices — Employee Obeying Lawful Order
A witness who performs services such as providing money, fuel and transport on the orders of an employer is not an accomplice where there is no evidence that he knew at the time that the persons he assisted were killers; he does no more than an employee would do in obedience to a master's lawful order.
Evidence — Dying Declarations — Statements as to Cause of Death under section 30(a) Evidence Act
A statement made by a person, since deceased, as to the cause of his death or the circumstances resulting in it is admissible under section 30(a) of the Evidence Act, whether or not the maker was under expectation of death, provided it relates directly to the occasion of death rather than being a general expression of fear or suspicion.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Circumstantial Evidence — Standard for Conviction
In a case depending exclusively on circumstantial evidence, the court must find that the inculpatory facts are incompatible with the innocence of the accused and incapable of explanation upon any other reasonable hypothesis than that of guilt, and that there are no co-existing circumstances weakening or destroying that inference.
Evidence — Credibility — Witness with Previous Inconsistent Statement
The credibility of a witness must always be considered in the light of any previous inconsistent statement; it is wrong to treat in-court evidence as automatically preferable to a witness's earlier inconsistent statement.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Burden of Proof — Weighing Prosecution Evidence Against the Defence
Prosecution evidence must be examined and weighed against the evidence of the defence, with the burden of proof always resting on the prosecution, and no final decision taken until all the evidence, including the strengths and weaknesses of each side, has been considered to determine whether the defence has raised a reasonable doubt.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (19)

  • Asenua and Another v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1998)
  • Ssesanga Stephen v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 85 of 2000)
  • Davies v DPP (1954) AC 378
  • Nassolo Hadija v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 129 of 2000)
  • Canisio s/o Walya v R (1956) 23 EACA 453
  • R v Kabaleleine s/o Nchwamba (1946) 13 EACA 164
  • Pandya v R [1954] EA 336
  • Ruwala v R [1957] EA 570
  • Bogere Moses and Another v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1997)
  • Alfred Tajar v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 167 of 1969)
  • Sarapio Tinkamalirwe v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 27 of 1989)
  • Henry Kifamunte v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
  • Simon Musoke v R [1958] EA 775
  • Teper v R [1952] AC 480
  • Rex v Erunasani Sekono and Another (1947) 14 EACA 74
  • Abdu Ngobi v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1991)
  • Suleiman Katusabe v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 7 of 1991)
  • Justine Nankya v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 24 of 1995)
  • Godfrey Tinkamalirwe v Uganda [1988-1990] HCB 5

Cases citing this judgment (30)

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.

Twinomugisha Alex alias Twine and Others v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 35 of 2002) [2003] UGSC 57 (21 May 2003)
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.