Kitwala Ronald & 3 Ors V Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 70 of 1998) [1999] UGCA 11 (12 May 1999)

{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\uc1\deff0\stshfdbch0\stshfloch0\stshfhich0\stshfbi0\deflang2057\deflangfe2057{\fonttbl{\f0\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}Times New Roman;}{\f36\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times New Roman CE;} {\f37\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times New Roman Cyr;}{\f39\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek;}{\f40\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times New Roman Tur;}{\f41\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times New Roman (Hebrew);} {\f42\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times New Roman (Arabic);}{\f43\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic;}{\f44\froman\fcharset163\fprq2 Times New Roman (Vietnamese);}}{\colortbl;\red0\green0\blue0;\red0\green0\blue255;\red0\green255\blue255; \red0\green255\blue0;\red255\green0\blue255;\red255\green0\blue0;\red255\green255\blue0;\red255\green255\blue255;\red0\green0\blue128;\red0\green128\blue128;\red0\green128\blue0;\red128\green0\blue128;\red128\green0\blue0;\red128\green128\blue0; \red128\green128\blue128;\red192\green192\blue192;}{\stylesheet{\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe2057\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp2057 \snext0 Normal;}{\*\cs10 \additive \ssemihidden Default Paragraph Font;}{\*\ts11\tsrowd\trftsWidthB3\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3\tscellwidthfts0\tsvertalt\tsbrdrt\tsbrdrl\tsbrdrb\tsbrdrr\tsbrdrdgl\tsbrdrdgr\tsbrdrh\tsbrdrv \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\cgrid\langnp1024\langfenp1024 \snext11 \ssemihidden Normal Table;}{ \s15\ql \li0\ri0\sb100\sa100\sbauto1\saauto1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang2057\langfe2057\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp2057 \sbasedon0 \snext15 \styrsid12151048 Normal (Web);}{\s16\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar \tqc\tx4153\tqr\tx8306\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe2057\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp2057 \sbasedon0 \snext16 \styrsid9446375 footer;}{\*\cs17 \additive \sbasedon10 \styrsid9446375 page number;}} {\*\latentstyles\lsdstimax156\lsdlockeddef0}{\*\pgptbl {\pgp\ipgp0\itap0\li0\ri0\sb0\sa0}}{\*\rsidtbl \rsid136920\rsid274609\rsid485177\rsid556684\rsid659462\rsid664741\rsid917538\rsid927942\rsid989420\rsid1181291\rsid1386193\rsid2494090\rsid2654028 \rsid2828671\rsid3030982\rsid3083734\rsid3344365\rsid3363240\rsid3433939\rsid3553689\rsid3631666\rsid3681611\rsid3951827\rsid4277367\rsid4394937\rsid4788358\rsid5067222\rsid5391371\rsid5513164\rsid5521461\rsid6310293\rsid6494996\rsid6823951\rsid7481447 \rsid7488815\rsid7503713\rsid7736191\rsid7760981\rsid7808639\rsid7955076\rsid8283368\rsid8587455\rsid8854351\rsid8858630\rsid9446375\rsid9450102\rsid10246367\rsid10435620\rsid10451569\rsid10495257\rsid10501830\rsid10567427\rsid10630365\rsid10704626 \rsid10777418\rsid10815232\rsid11023801\rsid11214090\rsid11355092\rsid11813779\rsid11996237\rsid12004203\rsid12151048\rsid12219087\rsid12398478\rsid12454698\rsid13655592\rsid13719228\rsid13778835\rsid13909847\rsid13981333\rsid14048615\rsid14230087 \rsid14353272\rsid14627581\rsid14750223\rsid14814292\rsid14943545\rsid14966666\rsid15038951\rsid15085415\rsid15086497\rsid15485213\rsid16392646\rsid16516869}{\*\generator Microsoft Word 11.0.5604;}{\info{\title THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA }{\author skivumbi} {\operator skivumbi}{\creatim\yr2009\mo10\dy7\hr15\min7}{\revtim\yr2009\mo10\dy8\hr12\min45}{\version2}{\edmins48}{\nofpages9}{\nofwords2449}{\nofchars13964}{\nofcharsws16381}{\vern24689}} \widowctrl\ftnbj\aenddoc\noxlattoyen\expshrtn\noultrlspc\dntblnsbdb\nospaceforul\hyphcaps0\formshade\horzdoc\dghspace180\dgvspace180\dghorigin1701\dgvorigin1984\dghshow0\dgvshow0 \jexpand\viewkind1\viewscale100\pgbrdrhead\pgbrdrfoot\nolnhtadjtbl\nojkernpunct\rsidroot12151048 \fet0{\*\ftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe2057\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp2057 {\insrsid9446375 \chftnsep \par }}{\*\ftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe2057\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp2057 {\insrsid9446375 \chftnsepc \par }}{\*\aftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe2057\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp2057 {\insrsid9446375 \chftnsep \par }}{\*\aftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe2057\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp2057 {\insrsid9446375 \chftnsepc \par }}\sectd \linex0\endnhere\sectdefaultcl\sftnbj {\footer \pard\plain \s16\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\tqc\tx4153\tqr\tx8306\pvpara\phmrg\posxr\posy0\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid11994841 \fs20\lang1033\langfe2057\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp2057 {\field{\*\fldinst {\cs17\insrsid9446375 PAGE }}{\fldrslt {\cs17\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof\insrsid9446375 1}}}{\cs17\insrsid9446375 \par }\pard \s16\ql \li0\ri360\widctlpar\tqc\tx4153\tqr\tx8306\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin360\lin0\itap0\pararsid9446375 {\insrsid9446375 \par }}{\*\pnseclvl1\pnucrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl2\pnucltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl3\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl4\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta )}} {\*\pnseclvl5\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl6\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl7\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl8 \pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl9\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}\pard\plain \s15\qc \li0\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1 \widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3681611 \fs24\lang2057\langfe2057\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp2057 {\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12151048\charrsid3681611 THE }{ \b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12151048\charrsid3681611 REPUBLIC OF UGANDA \line IN }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12151048\charrsid3681611 THE }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12151048\charrsid3681611 COURT OF APPEAL OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA \line }{\b\i\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12151048\charrsid3681611 CORAM: }{\b\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12151048\charrsid3681611 HON. MR. JUSTICE G. M. }{ \b\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12151048\charrsid3681611 OKEI1LO, }{\b\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12151048\charrsid3681611 JA. \line }{\b\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid3681611 }{ \b\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12151048\charrsid3681611 HON. MR. JUSTICE S. G. ENGWAU, JA. \line }{\b\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid3681611 }{\b\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12151048\charrsid3681611 HON. MR. JUSTICE A. }{\b\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12151048\charrsid3681611 TWINOMUJ1JNI, }{\b\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12151048\charrsid3681611 JA. \line }{\b\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12151048\charrsid3681611 CRIMINAL }{\b\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12151048\charrsid3681611 APPEAL NO.70/98 }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12151048\charrsid3681611 \line KITWALA }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12151048\charrsid3681611 RONALD & 3 OTHERS ::::::::::::}{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid3681611 :::::::::::::::::}{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12151048\charrsid3681611 :::::::::::: APPELLANT \line VERSUS \line UGANDA : : :: : : : : : }{ \b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid3681611 ::::::::::::::::::::::}{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12151048\charrsid3681611 : : : : : ::::: : ::: : : : : :: ::::: RESPONDENT \line }{ \b\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12151048\charrsid3681611 (Appeal from }{\b\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12151048\charrsid3681611 the judgment }{\b\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12151048\charrsid3681611 of }{ \b\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12151048\charrsid3681611 the }{\b\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid3681611 High Court }{\b\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12151048\charrsid3681611 of }{ \b\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12151048\charrsid3681611 Uganda }{\b\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12151048\charrsid3681611 at }{\b\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid3681611 Kampala (S. B. Bossa, J.) dated }{ \b\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12151048\charrsid3681611 2/12/98 in Criminal Case No.98/97) \line }{\b\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid3681611 \par }\pard \s15\ql \li0\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12151048 {\b\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12151048\charrsid3681611 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT }{ \b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12151048\charrsid3681611 \line }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid3681611 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12151048\charrsid3681611 This}{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12151048\charrsid12151048 }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12151048\charrsid12151048 is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Uganda at Kampala whereby four appellants were convicted of murder c/s 183 and 184 of the Penal Code Act andwere sentenced to suffer death. At the time of hearing of the appeal, we were informed that the third appellant, Rwamigo Richard died in prison on 17}{\lang1033\langfe2057\super\langnp1033\insrsid12151048\charrsid3681611 th}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12151048\charrsid12151048 January 1997. The appeal was therefore prosecuted on behalf of the remaining three appellants. \line }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid3681611 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12151048\charrsid12151048 The prosecution case which was accepted by the learned trial judge is that the 10th July 1995 was a m arket day at Kankwale village, Muwanga sub-county in Kiboga District. On that day at about 1 p.m. the three appellants together with the now recently deceased Rwamigo Richard arrested the deceased called Paulo Kijwa for allegedly riding his bicycle throug h the market. The first appellant was a police Co}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid3681611 rporal with Kiboga District }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12151048\charrsid12151048 Administration then stationed at Muwanga Sub-county Headquarters. The other three were members of the Local Defence Unit (LDU) employed within Muwanga Sub-county. The appel lants roughed the deceased up and removed his bicycle from him. They demanded for money from him which he }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12151048\charrsid3681611 was}{\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12151048\charrsid12151048 }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12151048\charrsid12151048 very reluctant to pay. After a lot of threats that he would face very serious consequences if he did not pay up, he paid shs.4000/= which they too k but demanded for more. The deceased paid a further shs.1000/= which apparently did not satisfy them either. When he tried to remove his bicycle, the appellants grew wild, re-arrested him and shortly jointly assaulted him seriously. He fell down whereby t hey tied his hands at the back but he managed to release himself and stood up. At that time, the three LDU members were armed with a gun each but the first appellant was not armed. The first appellant asked Rwamigo Richard to give him the gun which Rwamig o surrendered. The 1st appellant fired one shot in the air after which he fired one bullet in the face of the deceased. The deceased fell down and the 1st appellant fired another two bullets at the legs of the deceased. The deceased died instantly. The 1st appellant then fired many shorts in the air causing a stampede in the market whereby virtually everyone dispersed and ran away. Only close relatives of the deceased remained around and took the corpse to their home. \line }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid3681611 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12151048\charrsid12151048 Meanwhile the four men left the scene with the deceased\rquote s bicycle. At around 6 p.m. on the same day, the 1}{\lang1033\langfe2057\super\langnp1033\insrsid12151048\charrsid3681611 st} {\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12151048\charrsid12151048 and 2}{\lang1033\langfe2057\super\langnp1033\insrsid12151048\charrsid3681611 nd}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12151048\charrsid12151048 appellants reported themselves at Nabwendo Police Post about three miles from the scene of the crime. They reported that they had killed someone at the market and they surrendere}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid3681611 d a gun as }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12151048\charrsid12151048 the murder weapon and the bicycle belonging to the deceased. They were arrested and detained. The prosecution case did not indicate how Rwamigo Richard and the fourth appellant were arrested. \line }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid3681611 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12151048\charrsid12151048 At the trial the four men totally denied the offence and set up an alibi whereby they all claimed that on the material day and time they were not at Kankwale market. The learned trial judge rejected their defence and convicted them of murder. Hence this appeal. \line }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid3681611 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12151048\charrsid12151048 There is only one ground of appeal, namely:}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid3681611 - \par }\pard \s15\ql \li720\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid3681611 {\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid3681611 \'93The }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12151048\charrsid12151048 learne}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid3681611 d trial judge erred in law and }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12151048\charrsid12151048 fact when she held that the accused persons/appellants were properly identified and put on the scene of the crime by the prosecution witnesses.\'94 \line }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid6823951 \par }\pard \s15\ql \li0\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6823951 {\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid6823951 Mr. Leonard Musika of m}{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12151048\charrsid12151048 /s Babigurnira and Company Advocates represented the three appellants before this court. His arguments as we understood them were two pronged:- \line }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid6823951 \par }\pard \s15\ql \fi-720\li1440\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1440\itap0\pararsid6823951 {\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12151048\charrsid12151048 (a) }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid6823951 \tab }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12151048\charrsid12151048 That the evidence of identification was not sufficient because the prosecution only chose to call evidence of relatives of the deceased whereas the crime was committed in broad day light in presence of hundreds of pepple who were in the market and in his view, more independent witnesses should have been called to support the evidence of identification given by the relatives of the deceased. \line }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid6823951 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12151048\charrsid12151048 (b) }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid6823951 \tab }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12151048\charrsid12151048 That the only witness who implicated the 4th appellant (Kyalimpa Kaloli) was the wife of the deceased who had not known the appellant before the incident. Learned counsel further point}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid6823951 ed out that this witness had }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12151048\charrsid12151048 confessed to having told lies to the court when she first denied that she }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid6823951 had come to the market to sell }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12151048\charrsid12151048 a local alcoholic beer locally known as TONTO. In his view the evidence of that witness was worthless which leaves no evidence against the 4th appellant at all, and it was unsafe to con vict him on her evidence alone. \line }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid6823951 \par }\pard \s15\ql \li0\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6823951 {\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12151048\charrsid12151048 In reply, Ms Damali Lwanga, Principal State Attorney who represented the respondent argued:}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid6823951 - \par }\pard \s15\ql \fi-720\li1440\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1440\itap0\pararsid6823951 {\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid6823951 (a) \tab }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12151048\charrsid12151048 That there is no law which pr\'e0hibits relatives of a victim of crime from testifying against those accused of the crime as long as they are competent witnesses and have admissible evidence. She submitted further that there is no law laying down the number of witnesses and in her view, except in cases requiring corroboration the evidence of one witness was sufficient to prove any f a ct. She submitted that once the learned trial judge found the prosecution evidence credible, as she did in this case, she was entitled to rely on it. She pointed out that in this case after a lot of gun fire at the scene of crime, most of the people ran a way leaving behind only those relatives of the deceased who were interested in recovering his body and to her this explained why they were eventually the only ones available to give evidence in court. \line }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid6823951 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12151048\charrsid12151048 (b) }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid6823951 \tab }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12151048\charrsid12151048 Regarding the submission that the only witness impl icating the 4th appellant was a self confessed liar, Ms Lwanga submitted that the wife of the deceased was not a liar and in fact the learned trial judge found her to be a very credible witness despite her admission that she had told a lie. The trial judg e dealt with that matter at length and concluded that despite that isolated li}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid6823951 e, the rest of her testimony }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12151048\charrsid12151048 was accurate and credible. That as a }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid3553689\charrsid3553689 person}{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid3553689 }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid3553689 who }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12151048\charrsid12151048 witnessed the whole incid}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid3553689 ent that led to the death of }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12151048\charrsid12151048 her husband, she described all the ev ents very well describing in detail the role played by each of the appellants accurately and without contradictions or discrepancies. In her view the learned trial judge was entitled to rely on her testimony as she did. \line }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid3553689 \par }\pard \s15\ql \li0\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3553689 {\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12151048\charrsid12151048 We shall now deal with the merits o f this appeal. The main issue is whether the appellants were correctly identified at the scene of the crime on the day and time the deceased was shot dead. This crime was committed in broad day light at 1 p.m. to be exact, in a market place. The first two

appellants who were local security officers were very well known in the area. Furthermore the learned trial judge accepted, as he was entitled to, the evidence that the first two appellants reported themselves on the same day at about 6 p.m. that they had killed the deceased at the market, and surrendered the gun they had used to kill the deceased and the deceased\rquote s own bicycle which was the cause of the scuffle that led to his death. \line }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid3553689 \par }\pard \s15\ql \li0\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12151048 {\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12151048\charrsid12151048 The learned trial judge considered the defence of the appellants that th ey were not at the scene of the crime and that they were all airested separately and charged with this crime. In light of the prosecution evidence she had accepted, she was convinced that the appellants were squarely put at the scene of the crime and that

their alibi was false. She directed herself properly on the law and on the evidence. The assessors had advised her to accept the evidence of the prosecution and to convict all the appellants. She did so and we agree. We do not accept the argument that the evi}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid3553689 dence of prosecution witnesses }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12151048\charrsid12151048 should not have been accepted because they were all relatives of the deceased or that any other witnesses were required to prove the case against the appellants. As long as a witness is competent and credible, his or her evidence can\rquote be relied upon even if it is of a single witness. We hold that the first two appellants were properly identified at the scene and this leg of the first ground of appeal is rejected. \line }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid3553689 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12151048\charrsid12151048 The second leg of this ground was that the wife of the d eceased who gave the only evidence implicating the 4th appellant was a self confessed liar and that it is extremely unsafe to base a conviction on the evidence of this single witness. In her judgment the learned trial judge dealt at length with the eviden ce of this witness. She accepted most of her evidence. On the question of her lying to court, the trial judge observed:}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid3553689 \par }\pard \s15\ql \li720\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid3553689 {\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12151048\charrsid12151048 \'93I am aware th}{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid3553689 at this witness lied about the }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12151048\charrsid12151048 reason she went to the market and stated that she had gone there to buy goods, yet she admit ted later that she had gone to sell tonto beer. However this slip does not make her an unreliable witness. She stood firm in the face of vigorous cross-examination and I have no doubt that she told the truth on what -transpired at the scene of the crime. \'94 \line }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid3553689 \par }\pard \s15\ql \li0\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12151048 {\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12151048\charrsid12151048 The learned trial judge had a lot of opportunity to observe this witness as she gave her evidence in court. Her evidence was very detailed. It is amazing that she survived a lengthy grilling cross-examination intact and did not contradict or depart from h er testimony. Its no wonder then that despite her admission that she had told a lie on oath, the le}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid3553689 arned trial judge found that }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12151048\charrsid12151048 her evidence }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12151048\charrsid3553689 was}{\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12151048\charrsid12151048 }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12151048\charrsid12151048 substantially truthful. The learned trial judge was entitled to do this on the authority of }{\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12151048\charrsid12151048 Alfred Taiar }{\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid3553689 \endash }{ \ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12151048\charrsid12151048 vs}{\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid3553689 - }{\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12151048\charrsid12151048 Uganda East African Court of Aeal Criminal appeal No.167 of 1969 }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12151048\charrsid12151048 where it was held that it was open to the trial judge to find that a witness has been substantially truthful even though he had lied in some particular respect. In the circumstances we agree with the trial judge and the assessors that the wife of the deceased was a truthful witness and her testimony duly implicated the 4th appellant in the commission of this crime. This leg of the only ground of appeal also fails. This means that the wh ole appeal fails. \line }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid3553689 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12151048\charrsid12151048 The above disposes of the appeal. However during the hearing of the appeal we were concerned that the issue of common intention was not given adequate consideration and we asked counsel to address us on the issue though it was not a groun d of appeal. However, they were not prepared and their brief submissions on the matter were not helpful. We feel that as a first appellate court, we should not leave this case without considering whether the appellants had a common intention to commit thi s crime. \line }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid3553689 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12151048\charrsid12151048 In her judgment the learned trial judge made brief references to the issue of common intention as follows:}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid3553689 - \par }\pard \s15\ql \li720\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid3553689 {\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12151048\charrsid12151048 \'93All the accus}{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid3553689 ed are liable because they got }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12151048\charrsid12151048 out together to prosecute an unlawful purpose namely, to extort money from an innocent man for a crime that did not \line exist.\'94 \line }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid3553689 \par }\pard \s15\ql \li0\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12151048 {\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12151048\charrsid12151048 Then in conclusion she stated:}{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid3553689 - \par }\pard \s15\ql \li720\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid9446375 {\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9446375 \'93Although }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12151048\charrsid12151048 Al shot the }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9446375 deceased, the common intention }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12151048\charrsid12151048 of the remaining 3 accused to participate in the crime can be inferred from their presence at the scene of the crime, their actions to wit A2, strangling the deceased before he was shot, A3 in releasing his gun to Al and A4 in assisting to detain the bicycle of the deceased. (See }{\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12151048\charrsid12151048 R -vs- Tabulayenka & Another (1943) 10 EACA 131 and D. Magayi -vs- Uganda [19651 EA 667). }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12151048\charrsid12151048 They were therefore all guilty.\'94 \line }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9446375 \par }\pard \s15\ql \li0\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9446375 {\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12151048\charrsid12151048 The two cases cited in the above extract discussed the meaning and application of section 22 of the Penal Code Act which pro\rquote 4des as follows:}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9446375 - \par }\pard \s15\ql \li720\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid9446375 {\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9446375 \'93Where }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12151048\charrsid12151048 two}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9446375 or more persons form a common }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12151048\charrsid12151048 intention to prosecute an unlawful purpose in conjunction with one another, and in prosecution of such a purpose }{\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12151048\charrsid12151048 an offence is committed of such a nature that . its commission was a probable consequence of the prosecution of such purpose, each of them is deemed to have committed the offence.\'94 }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12151048\charrsid12151048 (Emphasis ours) \line }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9446375 \par }\pard \s15\ql \li0\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9446375 {\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12151048\charrsid12151048 Both cases cited above concerned thief beating. The appellants gathered spontaneously and beat and tortured suspected thieves until they died. The court held in both cases that the death of the victims was a probable consequence of the beating and torturi ng inflicted by the appellants. \line }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9446375 \par }\pard \s15\ql \li0\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12151048 {\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12151048\charrsid12151048 In the instant case the facts are rather different. It is true the appellants unlawfully arrested the deceased in order to extort money from him. They roughed}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9446375 him up and assaulted him in }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12151048\charrsid12151048 an attempt to extort the bribe f rom him. They confiscated his bicycle for the same purpose. The issue is whether the death of the deceased through gun shot wounds can be said to be a probable consequence of the appellants actions. \line }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9446375

\par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12151048\charrsid12151048 There is of course no difficulty in answering this quest ion in the affirmative in respect of the 1st appellant and Rwamigo Richard (now dead). It was the 1st appellant who shot the deceased and it was Rwamigo who handed over the gun that was used to kill him. The 1st appellant who was not armed would not have c ommitted this crime the way he did if someone had not given him a gun. The only difficulty is when considering the case of the 2nd and 4th appellants. According to evidence, both assaulted the deceased. They all took part in demanding the bribe. Both had guns but did not use them against the deceased. Could they have reasonably foreseen that the first appellant who was a more senior security officer, a corporal and a policeman, who was not armed would suddenly get a gun and shoot the dceased? \line }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9446375 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12151048\charrsid12151048 In our judgment, we would have been inclined to answer the above question in the negative if the 2}{\lang1033\langfe2057\super\langnp1033\insrsid12151048\charrsid9446375 nd}{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12151048\charrsid12151048 and the 4}{\lang1033\langfe2057\super\langnp1033\insrsid12151048\charrsid9446375 th}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12151048\charrsid12151048 appellants were not members of LDU. Members of LDU, like police officers have a duty to protect life and property of the people. They should not in the firs t place have engaged in the unlawful act of extorting a bribe from the deceased. They had a duty to protect the deceased. They also had the capacity and the opportunity to prevent the 1st appellant from shooting the deceased. Though he acted rather sudden ly, it should be remembered that he was not armed in t}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9446375 he first place. He asked for }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12151048\charrsid12151048 a gun from an LDU when they were seeing and hearing. If they had no common intention with the 1st appellant, this should have alerted them that he was about to do wha t they had the duty to prevent. They did nothing. Then a gun was handed to him and they did nothing. He must have cocked the gun before shooting but they looked on and did nothing. He first shot in the air. This is how the first prosecution witness descri bes moments before and during the shooting of the deceased:}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9446375 - \par }\pard \s15\ql \li720\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid9446375 {\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9446375 \'93He }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12151048\charrsid12151048 got a gun}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9446375 and fired in the air. He shot }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12151048\charrsid12151048 passed the head of the deceased. When he finished th}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9446375 at Al told me to go out of his }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12151048\charrsid12151048 sight because I was still asking him to have mercy on the deceased. At that time the deceased was standing in front of Al. As I was moving away he shot the deceased. He shot him in the nose and the bullet went out from the back of the head. Because of the shot he had made in the air people had got scared and ran out of th e market. The deceased died. I also ran for about 3 metres. I heard very many shots}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9446375 \'85.}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12151048\charrsid12151048 \line The accused persons pointed the guns at us before the deceased was killed in the scuffle when Al was tying him up with fibres. After the firing Al, A2, A3 and A4 left the scene. As they moved away they were firing their guns.\'94 \line }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9446375 \par }\pard \s15\ql \li0\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12151048 {\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12151048\charrsid12151048 Surely if they did not approve or acquiesce in what he was doing they had enough time to disarm him at any of these stages when it had become clear that he was already so worked up that he could shoot the deceased. Instead, they stood there with their guns aimed at the crowd until the 1}{\lang1033\langfe2057\super\langnp1033\insrsid12151048\charrsid9446375 st}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12151048\charrsid12151048 }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9446375 appellant shot the deceased }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12151048\charrsid12151048 three times. Even their final act of shooting in the air together as they left the scene clearly was meant to scare the people who would have ar\rquote rested the four of them as they all had participated in the killing. In these circumstances we have no doubt that all the appellants not only acquiesced and encouraged the commission of the crime but also fully participated in its commission. \line }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9446375 \par }\pard \s15\ql \li0\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9446375 {\insrsid12151048\charrsid12151048 In the result we find no merit in this appeal. We uphold the conviction and sentence and dismiss the appeal. \line }{\insrsid9446375 Dated at Kampala this 12}{\super\insrsid9446375\charrsid9446375 th}{\insrsid9446375 }{\insrsid12151048\charrsid12151048 day of }{\insrsid9446375 May }{\insrsid12151048\charrsid12151048 1999. \line }{\insrsid9446375 G. M. }{\insrsid12151048\charrsid12151048 OKELLO \line }{\b\i\ul\insrsid12151048\charrsid12151048 JUSTICE OF }{\b\i\ul\insrsid12151048\charrsid9446375 APPEAL}{ \i\ul\insrsid12151048\charrsid12151048 }{\i\insrsid12151048\charrsid12151048 \line }{\insrsid9446375\charrsid9446375 \par }{\insrsid9446375 S. G. ENGWA}{\insrsid12151048\charrsid12151048 U. \line }{\b\i\ul\insrsid12151048\charrsid12151048 JUSTICE OF }{\b\i\ul\insrsid12151048\charrsid9446375 APPEAL}{\i\ul\insrsid12151048\charrsid12151048 }{ \i\insrsid12151048\charrsid12151048 \line }{\insrsid9446375 \line A. TWINOMU}{\insrsid12151048\charrsid12151048 JUNI \line }{\b\i\ul\insrsid9446375\charrsid9446375 JU}{\b\i\ul\insrsid12151048\charrsid12151048 STI}{\b\i\ul\insrsid9446375 CE}{ \b\i\ul\insrsid12151048\charrsid12151048 OF }{\b\i\ul\insrsid12151048\charrsid9446375 APPEAL}{\i\ul\insrsid12151048\charrsid12151048 }{\i\insrsid12151048\charrsid12151048 \line }{\insrsid14750223\charrsid12151048 \par }}