[2006] UGSC 23
The Supreme Court found that the trial judge did not err in admitting the confession statements made by the appellants to the police, and that the Court of Appeal was correct in upholding the trial court's decision. The confessions were deemed admissible, and there was no legal basis to overturn the convictions for...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2006] UGSC 23
- Parties
- Appellant: Okiror Leo; Appellant: Ojal Peteb; Respondent: Uganda
- Court
- Supreme Court of Uganda
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 1 of 2003
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Final Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Judges
- J.W.N.Tsekooko, JSC, Karokora, JSC, Mulenga, JSC, Kanyeihamba, JSC, Katureebe ,JSC
- Legal Topics
- Admissibility of Confessions, Murder Conviction, Appeal Dismissal
- 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
Okiror Leo
Appellant
Ojal Peteb
Appellant
Uganda
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Final Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the confession statements made to police by the appellants were admissible in evidence.
- 2 Whether the trial court and the Court of Appeal erred in admitting and upholding the confession statements.
- 3 Whether the convictions for murder should be upheld.
Ratio Decidendi
The Supreme Court found that the trial judge did not err in admitting the confession statements made by the appellants to the police, and that the Court of Appeal was correct in upholding the trial court's decision. The confessions were deemed admissible, and there was no legal basis to overturn the convictions for murder. The appeals lacked merit and were accordingly dismissed.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- The appeals are dismissed.
- The convictions and sentences for murder are upheld.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
#### THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
## IN THE SUPREME COURT OF UGANDA AT MENGO
CORAM: ■|St XJl r. J, KAROKORA, MULENGA, KANYEIHAMBA, AND KAiUREEBE, JJ. SC. .
# CRIMINAL APPEAL No.01/2003.
#### **BETWEEN**
**1. OKiROR** LEO **APELLANTS** 2. OJAL PE TEb
### VERSUS
#### UGANDA RESPONDENT
*[Appeal fr >n (I c decision of the Court ofAppeal at Kampala i. id <sup>&</sup>gt; DCJ., Kato and Mpagi-Bahigeine,JJA) dated 14"' <sup>i</sup> -eceu her, 1999 in Criminal Appeal No. <sup>11</sup> of 1999]*
#### JUDGMENT OF **THE** COURT
filed a sei **<sup>0</sup>** In the High Com!. the appellants were charged, tried and convicted of murder of two people. Their appeals to the Court of Appeal were dismissed. They have now appealed to this Court and each dam of appeal.
**!';c** Mr. Ojakol arc <sup>u</sup> '<sup>o</sup> !';e appeal of the first appellant while Mr. Ssekabojja argued the appeal of the 2nd appellant. Both counsel challenged tin- admissibility in the trial court of confession Staten lent mud-- ,- " <sup>e</sup> police by their respective clients. We did not find it necessary to hear Ms. Khisa, learned Senior
Principal State Attorney.
I
We have considered the judgments of the trial court and that of the Court of Appeal. We are fully satisfied that the trial judge did not err in admitting the two confession statements. Neither did the Court of Appeal err in upholding the decision of the trial judge. These appeals have no merit.
We therefore dismiss them.
Dated this day of October, 2006. 25th
J.<sup>w</sup>{<sup>n</sup> ,ts£kookci **JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT.**
**A. N. KAROKORA JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT**
**J. N. MULENGA JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT**
**lG W. KANYEIHAMBA JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME** COURT
**B. KATUREEBE. JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT.**