Wakilii

Uganda v Nionzima Kato (Criminal High Court Session 153 of 2019)

High Court · [2022] UGHCCRD 1 · 2022 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Trial within a trial to determine admissibility of charge and caution statement
Decision
Charge and caution statement admitted in evidence

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 High Court held that the charge and caution statement was made voluntarily by the accused and properly recorded in compliance with sections 23 and 24 of the Evidence Act. Where the recording officer speaks and understands the accused's language, recording the statement in English while communicating in the vernacular is not fatal if the statement is read back in the vernacular and the accused confirms its accuracy. The court applied Ssegonja Paul v Uganda and distinguished it from the procedural requirements in Festo Androa Asenua. The statement was admitted as prosecution evidence.

Outcome

Charge and caution statement admitted in evidence

Facts

The accused, Nionzima Phillip Kato, was charged with performing a sexual act with a 10-year-old girl, Kayesu Juliana. On 17 August 2018, Assistant Inspector of Police Kiiza Edson (PW3) recorded a charge and caution statement from the accused at Kyenjojo Police Station. PW3 testified that the statement was recorded in Rukiga, the accused's language, though written in English. The accused confirmed understanding the charge, admitted performing the sexual act, and thumb-printed the statement after it was read back to him. At trial within a trial, the accused denied making the statement and denied ever seeing PW3. His testimony contained multiple contradictions: he initially denied signing any document, then said he was threatened but refused to sign, then admitted thumb-printing one document, and finally pointed to page two of the three-page statement. All three pages bore the same thumb print. The prosecution applied to tender the statement, and the defence objected on grounds that it was recorded in English rather than the accused's vernacular.

Issues

  1. Whether the charge and caution statement recorded by PW3 was made voluntarily by the accused.
  2. Whether the charge and caution statement recorded in English but conducted in Rukiga through a Rukiga-speaking police officer complies with the procedure in Festo Androa Asenua.

Orders

  • The charge and caution statement is admissible as prosecution evidence.
  • The charge and caution statement is admitted and marked PE3.

Rules and key headnotes

Evidence — Confessions — Admissibility — Recording of charge and caution statement — Language requirement
Where a charge and caution statement is recorded by a police officer who speaks and understands the accused's language, the fact that the statement is written in English rather than the vernacular is not fatal to admissibility if the statement was conducted in the accused's language and read back to the accused in that language, and the accused confirmed its accuracy.
Evidence — Confessions — Trial within a trial — Voluntariness — Assessment of witness credibility
In a trial within a trial to determine voluntariness of a confession, grave contradictions in the accused's evidence going to the central issue of whether the statement was made render that evidence unreliable and may be rejected, particularly where the recording officer's evidence is consistent and credible.
Criminal Procedure — Confessions — Recording by police — Qualifications of recording officer
A charge and caution statement recorded by a police officer of the rank of Assistant Inspector of Police satisfies the requirements of section 23(1)(a) of the Evidence Act and is admissible if made voluntarily.
Evidence — Confessions — Voluntariness — Absence of inducement, threat or violence
A confession is voluntary where the recording officer was not armed, wore civilian clothes, was alone with the accused in an office, explained the charge and caution, and the accused chose to make the statement after being informed he was free not to say anything.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (13)

  • Festo Androa Asenua and Another v Uganda (SCCA No. 1 of 1998)
  • Chandia v Uganda (SCCA No. 23 of 2001)
  • Kawoya Joseph v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 50 of 1999)
  • Edward Mawanda v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 4 of 1999)
  • Kwoba v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 2 of 2000)
  • Amos Biruge and Others v Uganda (SCCA No. 23 of 1989)
  • Uganda v Kavuma Ismail (Criminal Session No. 819 of 2016)
  • Alfred Tajar v Uganda (EACA Criminal Appeal No. 167 of 1969)
  • Uganda v. F. Ssembatya and another [1974] HCB 278
  • Sarapio Tinkamalirwe v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 27 of 1989)
  • Twinomugisha Alex and Two Others v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 36 of 2002)
  • Uganda v. Abdallah Nassur [1982] HCB
  • Ssegonja Paul v Uganda (SCCA No. 42 of 2000)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Uganda v Nionzima Kato (Criminal High Court Session 153 of 2019) [2022] UGHCCRD 1 (27 January 2022)
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.