CRIMINAL LAW: (CRIMINAL APPEAL) IDENTIFICATION BY A SINGLE IDENTIFYING WITNESS)

Buteera, Mulyagonja, and Mugenyi, JJA, dismissed the appeal after finding no merit in it and upheld the Appellant's conviction and sentence. In their decision, the Justices of Appeal held as follows:

1. (APPEALS)

   📌As this was a first appeal, the Court was required to review the evidence and make its own inferences of law and fact [see Rule 30(1)(a) of the Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions]. It is trite law that the duty of a first appellate court is to reconsider all material evidence presented before the trial court and, while giving allowance for the fact that it neither saw nor heard the witnesses, come to its conclusion based on that evidence. The first appellate court must consider the evidence in its entirety and not any part of it in isolation. Only through such re-evaluation can it reach its own conclusions, distinct from merely endorsing the conclusions of the trial court.

2. (IDENTIFICATION)

   📌The test for correct identification in a criminal trial was articulated in the locus classicus case of Abdalla Nabulere & Anor. When the prosecution's case relies on the evidence of a single identifying witness, the court must caution itself about the dangers of relying on such evidence and must ensure that there is no risk of mistaken identity.

   
   

   📌The Justices of Appeal reaffirmed that where other evidence sufficiently connects the accused to the crime, as was the case in this appeal, the failure to conduct an identification parade is not fatal to the conviction.

3. (SENTENCING)

   📌It is well established that an appropriate sentence is a matter of the sentencing judge's discretion, which is based on the intrinsic circumstances of each case. Judicial practice holds that an appellate court will not interfere with the sentencing judge’s discretion unless the sentence is illegal or so manifestly excessive that it results in an injustice.

Date of Ruling: 14th June 2024

Representation:

• For the Appellant: Mr. Norman Pande (holding brief for Mr. Henry Kunya)

• For the Respondent: Ms. Lillian Nandawula, Senior State Attorney

Case Link: https://ulii.org/akn/ug/judgment/ugca/2024/145/eng@2024-06-14