Case Law[2004] UGSC 50Uganda
Bainomugisha v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 20 of 2002) [2004] UGSC 50 (17 February 2004)
Supreme Court of Uganda
Judgment
THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF UGANDA
AT MENGO
CORAM: ODOKI, C.J., ODER, KAROKORA, KANYEIHAMBA,
KATO, JJ.S,C.
BETWEEN
BAINOMUGISHA HERBERT : : :: :: ::: :: : : ::: :: :: :: : : : : :: :: APPELLANT
UGANDA RESPONDENT
[Appealfrom the decision of the Court of Appeal given
at Kampala by Hon Mukasa-Kikonyogo. DCJ. Engwau
and Twinomujuni. J J.A on 8/5/02 in Criminal Appeal
No. 20 of 2OO2l
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
The appellant was indicted, tried. convicted and sentenced to
death by the High Court at Bushenyi for murder, contrary to
sections
'l
83 and 184 of the Penal Code Act.
He appealed to the Court of Appeal which dismissed it and
confirmed conviction and sentence. Hence this appeal
The background to this case is that on 4th March, 1997, the
appellant and his brother, both armed with pangas and
accompanied by their mother, went to the home of their father,
>
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 20 OF 2OO2
AND
L
Azaria Katsyomezo, which was also the home of his second wrfe
and cut him to death while inflicting serious bodily harm to his
second wife and her two children, PW 7 and PW 8
The appeal to this court was based on two grounds but the
appellant, through his counsel abandoned the first ground.
Ground 2 as amended reads as follows
Mr. Stephen Mubiru, counsel for the appellant contended that the
evidence of the children of the co-wife should not have been relied
upon, especially as that of their mother was clearly discredited by
the learned trial judge He further contended that the appellant's
evrdence that it was his father who attacked him first should have
been believed and the courts below should have found that he
killed his father after provocation and in self-defence.
Mrs Betty Khisa, Senior Principal State Attorney and counsel for
the respondent supported both the conviction and sentence She
argued that the evidence of PW 6, PW 7 and PW8 was properly
evaluated by both the High Court and the Court of Appeal and the
fact that they were all related to the deceased rs not a reason for
rejecting or discrediting their evidence.
"The learned Justices of Appeal misdirected fhemse/yes when they
relied on the discredited evidence of PW 6. PW 7 and PW I to
u ph old the a ppell a nt's co nvicti on. "
Having heard both counsel
proceedings, we are satisfied
convicted. We find no merit
dismissed
and examined the record of
that the appellant was properly
in this appeal lt is accordingly
Dated at Mengo this
'1
7'h day of Februa
DOKI
s-s1
A N KAROKORA
JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME C OURT
G KANYEIHAMBA
JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT
fi
C M. KATO
JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME CO URT
'1.
ry, 2004
CHIEF JUSTICE
\..
A.H O ODER
JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT
,K
Similar Cases
NO.0875 Pte. Wepukhulu Nyuguli v Uganda [2002] UGSC 14 (4 March 2002)
[2002] UGSC 14Supreme Court of Uganda86% similar
Kabwiso Issa v Uganda [2003] UGSC 36 (26 October 2003)
[2003] UGSC 36Supreme Court of Uganda85% similar
Mibulo Edward v Uganda [1995] UGSC 8 (28 November 1995)
[1995] UGSC 8Supreme Court of Uganda85% similar
Ndyomugenyi v Uganda (Civil Appeal 57 of 2016) [2018] UGSC 97 (26 April 2018)
[2018] UGSC 97Supreme Court of Uganda85% similar
Muzaya Thomas and Another v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 03 of 2006) [2007] UGSC 37 (30 May 2007)
[2007] UGSC 37Supreme Court of Uganda85% similar