Byasigaraho Wilson, Cpl. v Uganda [2004] UGSC 11 (18 February 2004)

# Byasigaraho Wilson, Cpl. v Uganda [2004] UGSC 11 (18 February 2004) [ Share this document on WhatsApp opens in new tab __](https://api.whatsapp.com/send?text=Byasigaraho+Wilson%2C+Cpl.+v+Uganda+%5B2004%5D+UGSC+11+%2818+February+2004%29+-+https%3A%2F%2Fulii.org%2Fen%2Fakn%2Fug%2Fjudgment%2Fugsc%2F2004%2F11%2Feng%402004-02-18) [ Share this document on X opens in new tab __](https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=Byasigaraho+Wilson%2C+Cpl.+v+Uganda+%5B2004%5D+UGSC+11+%2818+February+2004%29+-+https%3A%2F%2Fulii.org%2Fen%2Fakn%2Fug%2Fjudgment%2Fugsc%2F2004%2F11%2Feng%402004-02-18) [ Share this document on Facebook opens in new tab __](https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=https://ulii.org/en/akn/ug/judgment/ugsc/2004/11/eng@2004-02-18) [ Share this document on LinkedIn opens in new tab __](https://www.linkedin.com/sharing/share-offsite/?url=https://ulii.org/en/akn/ug/judgment/ugsc/2004/11/eng@2004-02-18) [ Share this document by email __](mailto:?subject=Take%20a%20look%20at%20this%20document%20from%20ULII:%20Byasigaraho%20Wilson,%20Cpl.%20v%20Uganda%20\[2004\]%20UGSC%20%E2%80%A6&body=https://ulii.org/en/akn/ug/judgment/ugsc/2004/11/eng@2004-02-18) __Save [ Download RTF (16.5 KB) ](/en/akn/ug/judgment/ugsc/2004/11/eng@2004-02-18/source) Toggle dropdown * [Download PDF](/en/akn/ug/judgment/ugsc/2004/11/eng@2004-02-18/source.pdf) Report a problem ##### Is there something wrong with this document? Problem category *Incorrect informationMissing informationNo PDF downloadDocument is emptyDocument is not accessible on my deviceOther What's the problem? * Your email address * CancelReport problem __ * Share * [ Download RTF (16.5 KB) ](/en/akn/ug/judgment/ugsc/2004/11/eng@2004-02-18/source) * [Download PDF](/en/akn/ug/judgment/ugsc/2004/11/eng@2004-02-18/source.pdf) * * * * * Report a problem __ ##### Byasigaraho Wilson, Cpl. v Uganda [2004] UGSC 11 (18 February 2004) Copy citation __Save * __Document detail * __Related documents Citation Byasigaraho Wilson, Cpl. v Uganda [2004] UGSC 11 (18 February 2004) Copy Media Neutral Citation [2004] UGSC 11 Copy Court [Supreme Court of Uganda](/en/judgments/UGSC/) Judgment date 18 February 2004 Language English Summary Confession held voluntary and corroborated; accomplice evidence sufficiently corroborated, appeal dismissed. ###### Flynote * Criminal Law —  Evidence * — Confession — Voluntariness and admissibility of statements made after alleged assault * — Accomplice evidence — Requirement and sufficiency of corroboration Read full summary ##### Unlock this feature Sign up to save documents, read summaries and access more features. [ Start My ULII ](/en/accounts/login/?next=%2Fen%2Faccounts%2Fsubscription%2Fcheck%3Fproduct%3DMy%2BULII%26next%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fulii.org%252Fen%252Fakn%252Fug%252Fjudgment%252Fugsc%252F2004%252F11%252Feng%25402004-02-18) Already have an account? [Log in](/en/accounts/login/?next=%2Fen%2Faccounts%2Fsubscription%2Fcheck%3Fproduct%3DMy%2BULII%26next%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fulii.org%252Fen%252Fakn%252Fug%252Fjudgment%252Fugsc%252F2004%252F11%252Feng%25402004-02-18). __ ##### Ask AI Ask questions and understand this document faster using AI. __Ask AI * * * Skip to document content **THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA** **IN THE SUPREME COURT OF UGANDA** **AT MENGO** _**CORAM: ODER, TSEKOOKO, KAROKORA, KANYEIHAMBA, KATO, JJ.S.C.**_ **CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 15 OF 2003** **CPL. BYASIGARAHO WILSON :::::::::::::::::::::::: APPELLANT** **AND** **UGANDA ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: RESPONDENT** _[An appeal from the decision of the Court of appeal contained in the judgment of the Justices Okello, Mpagi-Bahigeine and Twinomujuni, JJ.A. delivered on 8th May, 2003, in Criminal Appeal No. 15 of 2003]._ **_JUDGMENT OF THE COURT_** The appellant, Byasigaraho Wilson was indicted, tried, convicted and sentenced to death by the High Court at Fort Portal for aggravated robbery contrary to Sections 272 and 273(2) and murder, contrary to Sections 183 and 184 of the Penal Code Act. He appealed to the Court of Appeal which dismissed his appeal. Hence this appeal. The appeal to this court was founded on five grounds. During the course of his submissions, Mr. Cranimer Tayebwa, counsel for the appellant, abandoned ground 1. Counsel proceeded to argue the rest of the grounds together. He contended that the courts below did not take into account the fact that the appellant had been beaten before he made the charge and caution statement which the two courts held to be a confession. He further contended that the Court of Appeal failed to consider the statement in its entirety. The fact of the participation of PW 3 in the commission of the offences was ignored and ought to have been considered since he gave evidence as an accomplice. The courts below made errors in law and fact and this appeal ought to be allowed, conviction quashed and sentence set aside. Mrs. Betty Khisa, Senior Principle State Attorney, for the respondent supported both the convictions and sentence. Counsel for the state referred to the evidence relied upon by the courts below and the way the two courts reached their decisions. In her view, their findings and decisions were correct and cannot be faulted. She prayed that the appeal be dismissed. Having heard both counsel and perused the record of proceedings, we are satisfied that the appellant was properly convicted. His claim that he confessed because of beating is not true since the assault on his person was by a crowd which was chasing him after the murder and robbery had been reported and before he made his confession to the police officer, AIP Katabarwa. In our view therefore, the trial court and the Court of Appeal were correct in holding that the confession had been made voluntarily and was therefore admissible. In the confession, the appellant revealed the whereabouts of the murder weapon which only the user could have known. In any event, the evidence of PW 3 and PW 4 corroborated his confession. Whether or not the evidence of PW 3 as an alleged accomplice should have been ignored or not, would not have, in our opinion advanced the case for the defence any further. If PW 3 was indeed an accomplice, his evidence was amply corroborated. In our view, the trial court properly evaluated the evidence and the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal correctly reevaluated it and came to their own decision which was to confirm both the conviction and sentence. We are satisfied that the appellant was properly convicted. There was ample evidence to support this conviction. We find no merit in this appeal which must fail. It is accordingly dismissed. _**Dated at Mengo this 19**_ _**th**_ _**day of February, 2004.**_ **A.H.O. ODER** **JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT** **J.W.N. TSEKOOKO** **JUSTICE OF THE** S**UPREME COURT** **A.N. K****A****ROKORA** **JUSTICE OF THE** S**UPREME COURT** **G.W. KANYEIHAMBA** **JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT** **C.M. KATO** **JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT** #### __Related documents #### More documents like this one __Suggestions generated by AI. This feature is not currently available. ▲ To the top >