Court of Appeal: Information Supplied By An Accused Person Can Corroborate the Prosecution’s Evidence In and of Itself

---

Case Title:

Turyatemba Gad v Uganda

Court:

Court of Appeal of Uganda at Kampala

Date of Decision:

4th October 2024

Judges:

Hon. Justice Cheborion Barishaki, Hon. Justice Hellen Obura, Hon. Justice Eva Luswata, JJA.

Case Number/Citation:

Criminal Appeal No. 255 of 2019 [2024] UGCA 281

Topics: Criminal Law, Murder, Aggravated Robbery, Circumstantial Evidence, Sentencing Principles

Summary of Facts:

The appellant, Turyatemba Gad, was convicted by the High Court (Hon. Justice Anthony Oyuko-Ojok) on 7th April 2018 for the offences of murder under Sections 188 and 189 of the Penal Code Act, and aggravated robbery under Sections 285 and 286(2) of the Penal Code Act.

The facts of the case involved the murder of Kizito Miiro and the robbery of his vehicle, a Toyota Premio, on 8th May 2012 in Mpanga Village, Kamwenge District.

The appellant and several co-accused, including Makuwa Jackson, allegedly committed the crime. The appellant was sentenced to 34 years and 4 months of imprisonment.

Issues:

1. Whether the trial court erred in convicting the appellant based on accomplice evidence that allegedly lacked corroboration.
2. Whether the trial court erred in relying on circumstantial evidence and involuntary confessions to convict the appellant.
3. Whether the sentence imposed was harsh or excessive.

Court’s Decision:

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant’s appeal against the conviction but found merit in the appeal against the sentence.

1. Accomplice Evidence and Corroboration: The Court of Appeal held that the trial court correctly convicted the appellant based on the evidence presented, including circumstantial evidence that was corroborated by the testimony of prosecution witnesses and the recovery of items linked to the crime. The Court noted that while accomplice evidence requires corroboration, the involvement of the appellant himself in leading the police to the crime scene and the recovery of the deceased’s body and stolen items provided sufficient corroboration.
2. Circumstantial Evidence: The Court found that the circumstantial evidence, including the appellant’s actions in leading authorities to the scene where the deceased’s body was dumped and the recovery of stolen items, strongly linked him to the crime.
3. Sentence: The Court found that the Judge erred in sentencing the appellant by not stating that he had taken into consideration both mitigating and aggravating factors in coming to his sentence although he mentioned the factors. The Court of Appeal ruled that the trial Judge must mention that he took into consideration the mitigating factors and aggravating factors to assure the convict that he arrived at his decision fairly. Citing precedents in similar cases, the Court reduced the appellant’s sentence to 33 years and 4 months for murder and 24 years and 4 months for aggravated robbery. Both sentences are to run concurrently from 17th April 2018, the date of conviction.

Ratio Decidendi:

The Court held that the appellant’s evidence of participation in the crime can corroborate the prosecution evidence against him or her. Also, corroborated circumstantial evidence can support a conviction, especially when it links the accused directly to the crime. The court also highlighted the importance of indicating consideration of and considering mitigating factors, such as the appellant being a first-time offender and of advanced age when determining an appropriate sentence.

Laws Applied:

• Sections 188, 189, 285, and 286(2) of the Penal Code Act (Cap. 120)
• Section 27 of the Evidence Act (Cap. 6)
• Article 23(8) of the Constitution of Uganda, 1995
• Case Law: Rwatinda John v Uganda (SCCA No. 3 of 2015), Nasolo v Uganda (SCCA No. 4 of 2003), Bogere Moses v Uganda (SCCA No. 1 of 1997), Kiwalabye Benard v Uganda (SCCA No. 143 of 2001)

Relevant Quote:

The Court stated: “It is clear from the above two authorities of the Supreme Court that information given by an accused person leading to the recovery of the murder weapon or the deceased’s body or stolen items corroborates prosecution evidence and can be safely relied upon to convict the accused. We therefore find that in the instant case, the learned trial Judge rightly relied on the information the appellant and A1 gave…”

Counsel for the Parties:

• For the Appellant: Mr. Kumbuga Richard (State Brief)
• For the Respondent: Mr. Ssemalemba Simon Peter, Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions

Author’s Comment:

This decision reinforces the principle that corroboration of accomplice evidence is necessary for conviction, but evidence supplied by an accused person can corroborate prosecution evidence in and of itself.

The ruling also emphasizes the Court’s role in ensuring proportionality in sentencing, considering both aggravating and mitigating factors.

---