[2019] UGCA 183
The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge had erroneously convicted the appellants in the absence of any incriminating evidence. The proper course was acquittal, not a re-trial. Ordering a re-trial would subject the appellants to double jeopardy, which is constitutionally impermissible under Article 28(9). The...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] UGCA 183
- Parties
- Appellant: Unknown (Appellants); Respondent: Uganda
- Court
- Court of Appeal of Uganda
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal No. 107 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal_allowed
- Judges
- Cheborion, JA, Egonda-Ntende, JA, Musota, JA
- Legal Topics
- Murder, Double Jeopardy, Retrial, Acquittal
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Unknown (Appellants)
Appellant
Uganda
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the conviction of the appellants for murder was supported by evidence.
- 2 Whether a re-trial should be ordered after quashing the conviction and sentence.
- 3 Whether ordering a re-trial would contravene the constitutional protection against double jeopardy.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge had erroneously convicted the appellants in the absence of any incriminating evidence. The proper course was acquittal, not a re-trial. Ordering a re-trial would subject the appellants to double jeopardy, which is constitutionally impermissible under Article 28(9). The appeal was allowed, the conviction quashed, the sentence set aside, and the immediate release of the appellants ordered. The request for a re-trial was declined to uphold constitutional protections and prevent further jeopardy.
Court Disposition
appeal_allowed
Orders
- Conviction quashed.
- Sentence set aside.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
16 paragraphs
# **THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA**
# **IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA**
*[Coram: Egonda-Ntende, Barishaki Cheborion & Musota, J JA]*
# **Criminal Appeal No. 107 of 2017**
(Arising from High Court Criminal Session Case No. 152 of 2016)
#### **BETWEEN**
*(On appeal from the Judgment o f the High Court (Murangira, J., ) sitting at Kampala and delivered on the 4th April 201*7)
#### **Reasons for Judgment of the Court**
[ 1 ] The appellants were tried and convicted of the offence of murder contrary to sections 188 and 189 of the Penal Code Act and sentenced to 37 years imprisonment. Dissatisfied with the decision of the trial the court the appellants appealed against both conviction and sentence. At the hearing of the appeal, Ms Sherifah Nalwanga, Senior State Attorney, appearing for the respondent, conceded the appeal, quite rightly in our view. She stated that there was no evidence on record implicating the appellants as having participated in the commission of the offence with which they were convicted of.
Page 1 of 3
- [2] Ms Nalwanga prayed that we should order a re-trial. - [3] We immediately allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction, set aside the sentences imposed upon the appellants, and ordered their immediate release. We declined to order a re-trial and promised to provide our reasons later. We now do so. - [4] Ms Nalwanga cited Kawoya v Uganda [20011 UGSC 4 in support of her submission that we should order a retrial. We have had occasion to study this judgment. We need not reproduce the facts of that case. The Supreme Court concluded that the appellant had not had a fair trial before the High Court. It stated in part, 'Because there was a mistrial, we order that the appellant be tried de novo before another judge.' - [5] A re-trial was ordered in that case because the trial had been a mistrial. That is not the case before us. In the case at hand the appellants were tried and the learned trial judge erroneously convicted them when there was no evidence incriminating them at all. The appellants ought to have been acquitted on the evidence adduced in the court below. - [6] In our view ordering a re-trial would amount to exposing the appellants to double jeopardy given that they were entitled to an acquittal in the court below. A re-trial is not permissible. It would contravene article 28 (9) of the Constitution. - [7] For those reasons we declined to order a re-trial of the appellants.
Signed, dated and delivered at Kampala this **2**- day of Ut 2019
**Justice of Appeal**
shaki Cheborion **Justice of Appeal**
Stephen Musota **Justice of Appeal**