Kato Kajubi v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 20 of 2014) [2021] UGSC 57 (12 November 2021)

Key Facts

Issues

• The court analyzed whether the inconsistencies in PW7 and PW8's accounts of the murder (e.g., who committed the act, motives, and details) were so significant they undermined the prosecution's case. The Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeal that the contradictions did not affect the main substance of the case and were safely severable from credible evidence.
• The court examined if the Court of Appeal correctly applied the law regarding accomplice evidence, particularly whether the inconsistencies and contradictions in PW7 and PW8's statements were grave enough to invalidate their testimony or if they could be disregarded as minor. The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal's finding that the evidence, while containing contradictions, was sufficiently corroborated to support the conviction.
• The court reviewed the appropriateness of the life imprisonment sentence, considering the Appellant's age, 47 dependants, and prior remand period. The Supreme Court upheld the sentence as lawful and proportionate to the gruesome nature of the crime (child decapitation and dismemberment).
• The court assessed if the Court of Appeal failed to address the Appellant's claim that he was in Jinja at the time of the murder. The Supreme Court confirmed that the Court of Appeal correctly evaluated the alibi through telephone call data and other evidence, concluding it was a fabrication.
• The court considered whether to admit fresh evidence submitted belatedly by the Appellant, which claimed he was framed by persons in authority and the business community. The application was disallowed due to lack of formal procedure, absence of attached evidence, and failure to meet the exceptional circumstances required for late admission of evidence under the Rules of the Supreme Court.

Holdings

• The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Court of Appeal's conviction and life imprisonment sentence of the Appellant for murder, finding the evidence of accomplices PW7 and PW8 credible and sufficient despite inconsistencies.
• The Court affirmed that the evidence of PW7 and PW8, corroborated by phone call data and the Appellant's conduct (e.g., abandoning known residences, false alibi), established his participation in the murder, even if their testimonies contained minor inconsistencies.
• The Court rejected the Appellant's request to admit fresh evidence, citing Rule 30 of the Supreme Court Rules and the lack of compliance with procedural requirements for late evidence, including no formal application or attached proof.

Remedies

Legal Principles

• The court outlined principles for handling contradictions in witness testimony, distinguishing between 'grave' inconsistencies (which undermine credibility) and 'minor' ones (which may be ignored). It referenced cases such as Serapio Tinkamalirwe v Uganda and Gabula Bright Africa v Uganda, emphasizing that courts should weigh inconsistencies in context and that minor contradictions do not invalidate credible evidence unless they suggest deliberate untruthfulness.
• The court addressed the corroboration of accomplice evidence, noting that convictions based on accomplice testimony require independent evidence to confirm material aspects of the story. It cited R v Baskerville and DPP v Kilbourne, holding that corroboration need not be direct but must render the accomplice's account 'probable' and 'reasonably safe' to accept. The Court of Appeal's findings on corroboration via phone records and failed alibi were upheld.
• The Supreme Court applied Rule 30 of the Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions, which prohibits the admission of fresh evidence at the appellate stage. However, Rule 2(2) of the same rules overrides this provision, allowing exceptions in 'exceptional cases' as per established authorities. The court emphasized that new evidence must be credible, relevant, and submitted without undue delay, citing tests from cases like A.G v Paul K. Semogere and others.

Precedent Name

• A.G v Paul K. Semogere
• Sitenda Sebalu vs Sam Njuba & Anor.
• Ntambala Fred vs Uganda
• Khatijabai Jiwa Hasham v. Zenab d/o Chandu Nansi
• Gabula Bright Africa vs. Uganda
• Obwalatum v Francis
• Siduwa Were v. Uganda
• Serapio Tinkamalirwe v Uganda
• Milly Masembe vs Sugar Corporation & Anor
• Akbar Hussein Godi v Uganda
• Kifamunte Henry vs Uganda
• Alfred Tajar v. Uganda
• Bogere Moses & Anor v Uganda

Cited Statute

• Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions
• Criminal Procedure Code Act
• Judicature Act

Judge Name

• Ruby Opio-Aweri
• Prof. Lillian Tibatemwa-Ekirikubinza
• Ezekiel Muhanguzi
• Alfonse C. Owiny-Dollo
• Percy Night Tuhaise

Passage Text

• The Supreme Court held that the sentence of life imprisonment was neither harsh nor excessive given the 'gruesome, horrendous, callous, and most unjustifiable killing of an innocent 12-year-old infant by decapitation and cutting off the private parts.'
• The Court of Appeal considered the phone call printouts as compelling evidence placing the Appellant at the scene of the crime. The printouts showed the Appellant's phone was used within a 20km radius of the crime scene, contradicting his alibi of being in Jinja.
• The Court of Appeal found that the inconsistencies and contradictions in the testimonies of PW7 and PW8 did not go to the substance of the case. What was material was that despite these inconsistencies, PW7 & PW8 were consistent on the fact that the Appellant was present in their house on the night of the murder and participated in the commission of the crime.