[2023] UGCA 39

# ⁵ THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

#### IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF UGANDA AT MBALE

# CRIMINAL APPEAL NO, O47O OF 2015

(Coram: Obura, Bamugemereire & Madrama, JJA)

OBIRAIANDREW FRANCIS} APPELLANT

VERSUS

# UGANDA} RESPONDENT

(Appeal from the decision of the High Court of Uganda at Soroti in Crtminal Sessron Case No. 0039 of 2014 before Batema, J delivered on 7h day of March 2018)

# JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appettant was charged with the offence of murder contrary to section 188 and 189 of the Penal Code Act. The particutars were that the appetlant on the 8th day of September 2013 at Soroti Senior Ouarters Soroti district wrth malice aforethought caused the death of Atim Dorothy. 15

The appeLl.ant was tried and convicted as charged whereupon he was sentenced to 35 years' imprisonment on 9th March 2018. The appellant was aggrieved by both the conviction and sentence and appealed to this court initiatty on 5 grounds and later with [eave of court on l2 grounds of appeat against his conviction and sentence, namety. 20

- 1. That the learned triat judge erred in l'aw in denying the appettant a fatr triaI in viotation of the constitution of the Repubtic of Uganda 1995(as - amended) thus occasioning a miscarriage of justice to the appeltant. - 2. The learned trait judge conducted the triat of the appettant that was riddted by grave procedural errors and irregutarities thereby causing faiture of justice to the appetl.ant. - 3. The learned trial judge erred in law and fact when he retied on the uncorroborated dying dectaration which f ett bel.ow the required

- ⁵ standard of proof to convict the appettant occasioning a miscarriage of justice. - 4. The [earned triat judge erred in [aw and fact when he faited to properly evaluate the circumstantial evidence on court record and as a resutt came to a wrong conclusion that the appettant was placed at the scene of the crime whereas not.

- 5. The learned triat judge erred in law and fact when he convicted the appettant without f ol.towing the [aw governing the assessor's' participation in the triat proceedings thereby causing a miscarrrage of ju st ice. - 6. The appettant did not receive effectrve assistance of defence counsel that caused a miscarriage of justice. - 7. The learned trial judge erred in law to hotd that the appettant was guitty whereas he found out that the prosecution of the appel'[ant was mounted and conducted in the breach of the [aw. - 8. The Learned triat judge erred in [aw and fact when he faited to draw an adverse inference in the prosecution's faiture to cat[ three materiaI witnesses. 25 - 9 The learned triat judge erred in [aw and fact when he did not give an order of retease of the appettants' motor vehicle Toyota RAV4 Registration No. UAR 809W. - 10. The learned triat judge erred in law and fact when he convicted the appetl.ant on the offence of murder when the post-mortem report was vague as to the cause of death of the victim teading to a faiture of justice.

- ⁵ 11. The learned triaL judge erred in law and fact in sentencing the appeltant to an ittegat, harsh and excessive sentence in the obtaining circumstances of the case. - 12. ln the atternative, that the triaI court erred in law and fact to deny the appettant a fair appeaI hearing when it faited to forward a compLete accurate court record of the case.

The appetlant prayed that the appeal be atLowed and the conviction be quashed and sentence set aside. ln the alternatrve, that a lenient sentence between 10 -15 years be substituted.

Representation l5

At the hearing of the Appeat, [earned counsel Mr. Napa Geoffrey appearing on state brief for the appettant informed court that the appel.tant had exercised his constitutionat right to se[f-represent himsetf and the same was conf irmed by court. The appettant was present in court and represented himse[f. The respondent was represented by the learned Assistant DPP Mr. Ssemalemba Simon Peter. The court was addressed in written submissrons by the appettant and counsel for the respondent and the appeaI was adjourned for judgment on notice.

The appettant submitted on atl the grounds of appeat and in ground 5 raised the issue of nuttity of the proceedings which we shat[ consider first as it goes to jurisdiction as to whether the judgment Leading to the other grounds is vatid. 25

# Submissions of the appettant on ground 5;

The appettant submitted that the two assessors who participated were never sworn rn as required by the law under section 67 of the Trial on lndictment Act. Secondty, that the triat judge did not record the particuLars of the assessors to conf irm that they were etigibte as provided by Sec. 3 of TriaI on lndictment Act. Further, the appetl.ant and his counseI were not asked if they had any objections to the assessors as required by section 68 30

⁵ TriaI on lndictment Act and that this irregutarity goes to the jurisdiction of the triat.

The appet[ant further submitted that on the 20ll+/2017 assessors were parachuted into the triat by the judge to take part in a triaI that started in their absence. However, the assessors kept absenting themselves during trial and woutd appear as they woutd deem fit contrary to Section 68 of Triat on lndictment Act and were attowed by the judge to continue taking part in the triat.

The appetl.ant further submitted that the assessors did not give their oprnion contrary to Section 67 of Triat on Indictment Act and that this affected the tegaLity of the appeltant's trial.. The appetlant submitted that the irregularities rendered the triaI a nuLLity and retied on 0kao Jimmy Atias Baby & 4 ors vs. Uganda; CACA No. 55 and Atenyo Marks vs. Uganda; SCCA No. 08 of 2007 to the effect of a triaI without participation of assessors. 15

The appeil.ant conctuded that it was ittegat for the triaI to proceed without triaI assessors.

# Repl.y of the respondent's counset to ground 5.

ln repty to ground 5 of the appeal., the respondents counseI submitted that atthough the typed record of proceedings does not show that the assessors gave their opinions it is clear from the handwritten record (pages 281-286) that the learned tria[ Judge duLy summed up the law and evidence to the assessors and they gave their opinions.

The respondent's counsel conceded in his submissions that the record of proceedings does not show that the assessors were sworn in at the beginning of the triat. They submitted that this irregutarity was not fataI to the proceedings and did not occasion a miscarriage of justice to the appetlant.

The respondent's Counse[ rel.ied on section 139 of the TriaI on lndictments Act for the proposition that the sentence shal.l, not be reversed on appeaI on ⁵ account of any error, omission, irregul.arity or misdirection untess it caused a miscarriage of justice. Section 139 of the TIA provrdes that:

> 139. Reversibitity or a[teration of finding, sentence or order by reason of error, etc.

10 (1) Subject to the provisions of any written Law, no finding, sentence or order passed by the High Court shatl be reversed or aLtered on appeal on account of any error, omission, irregularity or misdirection in the summons, warrant, indictment, order, judgment or other proceedings before or during the trial unLess the error, omission, irregularity or misdirection has, in fact, occasioned a faiture of justice

(2) ln determining whether any error, omission, irregularity or misdirection has occasioned a faiLure of justice, the court shaIL have regard to the question whether the objection could and shou[d have been raised at an eartier stage in the proceedings. 15

The respondent's counsel atso retied on Articte 126(2) (e) of the Constitution 1995 as amended which provides that; "substantive justice shaLt be administered without undue to regard to technicatities". 20

ln the premises, the respondent's counsel submitted that faiture of the assessors to be sworn in was an omission which did not cause ^a miscarriage of justice to the appettant. Be that as it may, they submitted that

it is evident from the proceedings that the appet[ant was represented by counsel from the beginning of the trial and neither his counsel nor the appettant objected to the said irregutarity and omission. 25

ln the premises, the respondents counseI prayed that this Honorable Court dismisses the appel.tants' appeaI in totatity and uphotds the sentence of 35

years' imprisonment imposed by the High Court. 30

# Resotution of ground 5 of appeat

We have carefutl.y considered ground 5 of the memorandum of appeaI which disctoses a point of [aw, the submissions of the appettant who represented himsetf, as wetl as the submissions in repty of the respondent's counset.

We have taken into account the authorities cited and have considered other 35

⁵ precedents on irregu[arities in triat with assessors. To establ.ish what happened we have studied the record.

As a first appeal from the decision of the High Court in the exercrse of its original. jurisdiction our duty as set out in Rul.e 30 of the Rul.es of this court is to retry the case by subjecting the typed record of the evidence to fresh

- scrutrny and to reach our own conctusions on matters of fact (see ruLe 30 of the Rules of this court). The duty of this court is set out in several authorities where rt is stated that we shouLd subject the evidence to fresh scrutiny and be cognisant of the fact that we neither saw nor heard the witnesses testify and should make due attowance for that (See Pandya v ^R 10 - [1957] EA 336, Sette and Another Vs Associated Motor Boat Company [1968] EA 123 and Kifamunte Henry v Uganda; SCCA No. 10 of 1997). 15

The typed record of proceedings shows that the trial commenced on 10th March 2017. The appettant was required to take a ptea to the charges. A pLea of not guitty was entered the same day and hearing of the prosecution case set to commence on the 27'h of March 2017. Thereafter the record shows that on 27th March 2017, the triat judge was indisposed and that the hearing was adjourned to the 3Oth of March 2017. 0n the 3Oth of March 2017, there rs no evidence of any assessors being present. The record shows as fo[[ows:

Accused present.

Aryong for state. 25

Levi Etum on private brief.

Ecitu Court c[erk.

0mongote Richard on watching bnef.

Thereafter, the state informed the court that they had witnesses in court and some basic facts were agreed upon by the parties. Further some exhibits were agreed upon by the parties and marked by court. Thereafter PWl took oath and testified. The hearing was then adjourned to 1Oth ApriI 2017. On 1[)th Apri[ 2017, the court did not proceed and by consent hearing was further adjourned to 18th Aprit 2017. 30

- 0n the lSth of Apri[ 20'17, there is no evidence of any assessors when the matter proceeded and evidence was taken from D/AIP Oketto Moses. Presumabty this was PW2. Thereafter PW 3 atso testified and was cross examined. Thereafter the matter was adjourned to 20th Aprit 2017 The record shows that the appettant was represented and on the record there 5 - is recorded the presence of two assessors whose particutars are, however, not given and a court clerk. The cross-examination of PW3 continued and thereafter hearing was adjourned to the 24th of Aprit 2017. 0n 2th Aprll2017, the parties were represented and the record shows that there were two assessors in attendance. However, the particutars of the assessors are not 10 - disclosed. 0n that day, PW4 testified and was cross examined and tater PW5 al.so testified and was cross examined. Hearing was adjourned to 25'h April 201'.1. 15

0n 25th of Aprit 2017, the record shows that the parties were represented whi[e two assessors were in attendance but their particutars are not given.

20 PW 6 testif ied and was cross examined. Further PW ? atso testif ied and was cross examined and the matter was adjourned to 27th Aprit 2017.

Surprisingty on 27th April. 2017, the appeltant appeared but there were no assessors. PW 8 testified and was cross examined by the appetLant since his counse[ was indisposed and was not present in court. The matter was adjourned to the next morning. 0n 28th Aprit 2017, the accused informed the

court that his lawyer was sick and hearing was further adjourned to the 4th of May 2017. On the 4th of May 2017, the parties were represented and the record does not have assessors being present. ln these proceedings PW ⁹ testified and was cross examined by the appettant's counsel and hearing was further adjourned to the 8th of May 2017. 30

0n 8'h May 2017, the parties were represented and it is recorded that two assessors were also present. The particutars of the assessors are not given. PW2 testified and was cross-examined. Further on 16th May 2017, the parties were present and the assessors were in court but their particulars

are not given. Submissions were received by the court from the parties, on 35

⁵ whether a prima facie case had been estabtished. TriaI was ad.journed to 7th June 20'17 and on 7th June 2017 for the accused to present his defence.

0n 8th Juty 2017 the parties were represented and the case was adjourned for defence of 19th June 20]7.

0n 20th June 2017, no assessors were present and the appel.l.ant's counsel was absent. The matter was adjourned for summing up and judgment was ^fixed for the 3l't of Juty 2017. On 11th Juty 2017 the matter came up for the summing up to assessors but it was not done and was rescheduted for 28rh September 2011 for reason that the [earned triat judge was indisposed. 0n 28th September 2017, the trial judge was stitt rndisposed. The matter was further adjourned to'l6th October 2017 and yet again on the date, it is indicated that the triat judge was indisposed and the hearing was rescheduted for 31't of October 2017. On 31't October 2017 the matter did not take off. lt was adjourned yet another time unti[ 13th February 20]8. 0n 13th February 20'18, the record shows that the appel. Lant was in the dock and his 10 15

- counsel was present. Two assessors were present and summing up was made to the assessors who adjourned their opinion for l5th February 2018. White the record shows that summing up was done, no particutars of the summing up was given and there is no record of what the learned triaL judge totd them. 20 - Thereafter they are no further proceedings showing that the assessors ever gave their opinion and if so when. The record onty shows that judgment was deLivered on 9th March 2018 and the appettant was sentenced. 25

We have carefutty considered the judgment and in the judgment, there is no mention of the assessors or their opinion. Even if there was any opinion, it is not on the record and the learned triat judge never referred to it.

From the proceedings, there is no evidence that assessors were sworn in at the commencement of the trial and they were not present at the commencement of the trial when several witnesses were catted. Further there is no evidence that the assessors attended some hearing dates when

witnesses were led in chief and cross examined. 35 - ⁵ The above is the state of the record. ln Okao Jimmy Al.ias Baby, Ogwanga Patrick alias Osinde, and 3 0thers v Uganda; Court of Appeat Criminat Appeat Nos 55, 62, &67 of 2017, this court considered the absence of assessors at pages 13 and 15 of the Judgment in the circumstances where one of the assessors was absent during part of the hearing. The court hetd - that the absence of assessors from hearing witnesses is not a mere irregu[arity. After considering section 69 ('l) of the Triat on lndictment Act, they held that the trial court proceeded with both assessors, summing up was made to both assessors after one of the assessors had been absent on one of the hearing dates and they hetd that: 10 - "we are of the view that the second assessor, having absented himse[f from part of the trial and did not hear the evidence even of onty one witness and shouLd not have been permatted to resume participation and give opinion in the case.... 15

2S

Altowing the assessor to resume participation in the trial was a fundamentaI irreguLarity which occasioned a miscarriage of justice. The assessor's opinion was based on incompLete evidence and it couLd have influenced the decision of the judge."

After considering section 34 (1) of the Crimina[ Procedure Code Act, to estabIish whether a substantiaI miscarriage of justice has actualty occurred despite the irregu[arity, the court found that the triaI was fatalty defective and quashed the conviction of the appettant and set aside the sentence.

We note that in this particul.ar appeat, there is no evidence that assessors were sworn at the beginning and their particuLars are missing from the record. The respondent in his submission attuded to the hand written record of proceedings at the high court that show that the assessors gave their

- opinion, but the same was not avaited to court and therefore court cannot conctude that the assessors gave their opinion. The court reties on the record to estabtish what happened in the proceedings and does not have the Iuxury of estabtishing from other unverifiabte independent sources what actua[ty happened. The record of proceedings is forwarded by the triat 30 - court and is the materiaI upon which this court can base its decision. 35

## ⁵ ln Atenyo Marks vs Uganda; Supreme Court Criminal, Appeal. No 08 of 2007, The Supreme Court hetd that:

"section 3 of the Trial on Indictments Act underscores the importance of assessors by providing for a mandatory requirement that a[[ criminaL tria[s in the High Court be conducted wrth at [east two assessors. lt therefore fotlows that assessors'participation and roLe in a criminaI triaI is vitat. Their roLe goes to the tegatity of a triat....

We have reviewed the record and have not seen any indication of the assessors having taken oath. lndeed, the respondent conceded to the fact that the assessors were not sworn in.

15 According to section 67 of the Trial on lndictments Act, the taking of oath is ^a mandatory prerequisrte in the triat process. The section provides as foltows:

> At the commencement of the trial and... After the pretiminary hearing has been conctuded, each assessor shall take an oath impatientl.y to advise the court to the best of his or her knowledge, skil. L and abil.ity on the issues pending before the court.

(Emphasis of court)

It is our finding that a triaI which proceeds without the assessors taking oath is a nuttity."

25 The decision of the Supreme Court was detrvered on 7th of November 2019. Further, the Supreme Court judgment is binding on this court. The judgment hotds that the faiture to take oath of assessors (whose particulars are even unknown) is a fatatity to the proceedings and therefore the proceedings in the [ower court are a nul.tity.

For emphasis, section 67 of the TIA provides that:

30 67. Oath of assessor.

At the commencement of the triaL and, where the provisions of section 66 are appticabte, after the pretiminary hearing has been conctuded, each assessor shaLL take an oath impartiatly to advise the court to the best of his or her knowtedge, skiLt and abitity on the issues pending before the court.

⁵ We have reviewed the record and have not seen any evidence of the assessors having taken oath. lndeed, there are even no particulars of the assessors anywhere.

We have further considered the issue of the records. ln Luhnago Hussein and Others Vs Uganda; Criminal Appeal. Nos 01, 06, 07 and 08 of 2015, thrs court considered the probtem of the vita[ parts of the record of the triaL court are missing and hetd that:

''ln Ephraim Mwesigwa Kamugwa Vs the Management Committee of Nyamirima Primary Schoot (Civil. Appeat 2011fl01) n9] UGCA Fredrick Egonda Ntende JA in this judgment anaLysed the law on incompLete record on appea[.

"What is the law with regard to an incomplete record of appeat? The taw on missing record of proceedings has long been established. Where a record of trjaI is incomptete by reason of parts having been omitted or gone missing, or where the entire record goes missrng, in such circumstances, the appettate court has the power to either order a retriaI or reconstruction of the record by the trial co u rt... " 15 20

The participation of assessors in this case after their initiaI absence when severaI witnesses testified and then their presence at some point of the proceedings and further absence and resumption renders their omission to participate in the triaI a fataI irregutarity. Moreover, assessors are required

- 25 to give their opinion but shoutd not take further proceedings in the triat if they had absented themselves when evidence was adduced. ln this case as we have summarised above, the record shows that the assessors were present at one point then they were absent at some materiaI points and later resumed as we have set out at the beginning of this judgment. A similar situation was considered by the Court of Appeat of Tanzania in Boniface Marce[ Tariro and Sijati vs Repubtic; CriminaI Appeat No. 289 of 201'l in a Judgment deIivered on 29th of September 2021 where the Court considered the irregutarity where one assessor left and later resumed hearing and gave his opinron. The court stated as fotlows: 30 - "ln this case, the record of appeaI bears out at page 55 that on ]1/5/2017 when the matter came up for continuation of hearing the triaL court informed the parties on the absence of assessor Mr. Laizer Moltet for being bereaved and the court 35

⁵ ordered the case to proceed as scheduled. Then the matter proceeded with the hearing oF the evidence of F. 1900 D/Cpt Lameck (PW5) whose evidence was very long untiI on 12/5 /2017 as shown at page B'] of the record of appeat. 0n the same date the court aLso heard the evidence of Sesilia lgnas Kavishe (PW6) whose evidence is at pages 81 to 86 of the record of appeat. Then Mr Laizer MoLteL resumed on 15 /5/2017 when PW7 testified to the end of the triat. Surprisingly enough, Mr. Laizer MotleL gave his opinion (page 184 - 185 of the record of appeat) which atso invoLved PW5 whose evidence he did not hear. And, the triaL court considered the assessor's opinion when it said: 10

> "considering all the evidence presented to court including the exhibits, final submisstons made and assessors' oprnions, I am convinced that..."

We think, based on the case of Assa Singh (supra) it was not proper for Mr Laizer MoLteL to resume and participate with hearing after having been absent for two days of hearrng of the case. As such, resumrng with hearing of the case and giving opinion on evidence of the witness he did not hear and the same being considered by the Court, was a fatal omission which renders the entire triaL and the judgment thereof a nuttity.

ln the end, considering aLL omissions we have endeavoured to expLain above, we are of the settLed view that, they are fataI and render the trial a nultity. Consequently, we nullify the proceedings and the judgment thereof, quash the conviction and set aside the sentence meted out against the appeLtant."

Further, we have considered the issue that the learned trial judge never referred to any assessor's opinion in terms of the taw. ln rn Atenyo Marks vs Uganda; (supra) the Supreme Court held inter alia that the participation of assessors under section 3 of the TIA goes to the tegatity of the triat.

Section 3 of the TIA provides that: 30

3. Assessors.

(l) Except as provided by any other written [aw, aL[ trials before the High Court shall be with the aid of assessors, the number of whom shalt be two or more as the court thinks f it.

ln our judgment, the faiture of assessors to participate at the hearing and to give their opinion goes to the jurisdiction of the court to pass judgment as the court was not be duly constituted to determine the case. 35

⁵ The requirement for assessors to give their opinion is a mandatory requirement though the judge does not have to conform to their opinion. Section 82 of the Tria[ on lndictment Act provides that:

82. Verdict and sentence.

10 (1) When the case on both sides is ctosed, the judge shatt sum up the Law and the evidence in the case to the assessors and shaL[ require each of the assessors to state his or her opinion oratty and shaL[ record each such opinion. The judge shaLt take a note of his or her summing up to the assessors.

> (2) The judge shall then give his or her judgment, but in so doing shatl not be bound to conform with the opinions of the assessors.

(3) Where the .ludge does not conform with the opinions of the majority of the assessors, he or she shaL[ state his or her reasons for departing from their opinions in his or her judgment. 15

The law is clear that the judge shal.t require each of the assessors to give their opinion. There is no evidence whatsoever on the record that the assessors gave their opinion at att. ln fact, the l'earned triat judge refers to no opinion of any assessor to support his finding or to depart from. ln Bakubye and Anor v Uganda (Criminal. Appeal,-2015, [2018] UGSC 5 07 January 2018) The Supreme Court hetd that section 82 (1) of the Trial On lndictments Act is couched in mandatory [anguage and the presiding judge is duty bound to do the summing up and that duty cannot be detegated. 20 25

We note that the section aiso directs the judge to ask the assessors to give their opinion. The fact that the trial. judge may agree or disagree with the opinion is not materiat as it is provided for under section 82 (2) of the TlA. What is materia[ being that the assessors shat[ give their opinion after they are asked by the triat judge to do so.

Be that as rt may, the opinion woutd have been of no vatue since it would have been given by the assessors who missed hearing the testimonies of several witnesses of the prosecution and the proceedings of court and did not see or hear the witnesses testify.

ln the premises, the trial was conducted without assessors for the reasons that they were not sworn, they both absconded when several witnesses 35

- ⁵ testified and onty heard some witnesses. The particutars of the assessors are not known and in any case their optnion coutd not be sought by court for reason of non-participation. The onLy remedy that was teft for the trrat judge was to f ind that there was a mistriaI and start the triat de novo after setection of new assessors. - ln the premises, we f ind that the triaI was a nuttity for the reasons we have set out and we altow ground 5 of the appeat, quash the conviction of the appettant and set aside the sentence. 10

Havrng set aside the conviction and sentence, we note that the appel.l.ant had been on remand for 5 years prior to his sentence on 5th March 2018. His appeal was heard in November 2022 thal means that he has been on remand for 9 years and some months. The issue remaining is whether ^a retrial shoutd be ordered in the circumstances.

The principl.es for ordering a retriaI were considered by this court in Rev. Father Santos Wapokra Vs Uganda; Court of Appeat Criminat Appeal, No. 204

of 2012 where the court cited severaI precedents for the principl.es for determining whether a retrial shoutd be ordered. The Court of Appeat hetd that: 20

The overriding purpose of the retriaI is to ensure that the cause of justice is done in the case before Court. A serious error committed as to the conduct of the triaL or the discovery of new evidence, which was not obtainabLe at the triat, are the major consrderations for ordering a retria[. The Court that has tried a case shoutd be abte to correct the errors as to the manner of the conduct of the triat, or to recetve other evidence that was then not avaitab[e. However, that must ensure that the accused person is not subjected to doubte jeopardy, by way of expense, detay and inconvenience by reason of the tria[.

An order for a retrial is as a resutt of the ludicious exercise of the Courts discretion. This discretion must be exercised with great care and not randomLy, but upon principles that have been devetoped over time by the Courts: See: Fatehali Manji v R [1966] EA 343.

³⁵ Among the principles referred irreguLarity is reason enough is the consideration of whether warrant an order of retriat. ln to to the the

- circumstances, the irregutarity was a serious irregularity that went to the jurisdiction of the court and therefore there was no val.id tria[ at al.[. We have considered the circumstances in which the appettant spent about nine years on remand but had been charged with the serious offence of murder which carries a maximum penatty of death. The cause of justice is that such a trial - shoutd be conducted and succeed or fail on the merits. The reason the trial was rendered a nuttity is the absence of assessors in the manner provided for under the Triat on lndictment Act, as we have set out above. 10

ln the premises, because no vatrd triaI took ptace, and the cause of justice requires such offences of murder to be tried, we hereby order a retrial of

the appettant. The appettant is according[y remanded for triaI in the High Court where he may appty for bait pendrng retrial if he so desires. 15

Dated at Mbate the 1fo"u ot Lffi zozz

et n Obura

²⁰ Justice f Appeal,

Catherine Bam gemereire

Justice of Appeat

²⁵ Christopher Madrama

Justice of Appeal.

15