Kato Gabriel v Uganda [2002] UGSC 29 (8 July 2002)

# Kato Gabriel v Uganda [2002] UGSC 29 (8 July 2002) [ Share this document on WhatsApp opens in new tab __](https://api.whatsapp.com/send?text=Kato+Gabriel+v+Uganda+%5B2002%5D+UGSC+29+%288+July+2002%29+-+https%3A%2F%2Fulii.org%2Fen%2Fakn%2Fug%2Fjudgment%2Fugsc%2F2002%2F29%2Feng%402002-07-08) [ Share this document on X opens in new tab __](https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=Kato+Gabriel+v+Uganda+%5B2002%5D+UGSC+29+%288+July+2002%29+-+https%3A%2F%2Fulii.org%2Fen%2Fakn%2Fug%2Fjudgment%2Fugsc%2F2002%2F29%2Feng%402002-07-08) [ 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/2002/29/eng@2002-07-08) [ 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/2002/29/eng@2002-07-08) [ Share this document by email __](mailto:?subject=Take%20a%20look%20at%20this%20document%20from%20ULII:%20Kato%20Gabriel%20v%20Uganda%20\[2002\]%20UGSC%2029%20%E2%80%A6&body=https://ulii.org/en/akn/ug/judgment/ugsc/2002/29/eng@2002-07-08) __Save [ Download RTF (19.8 KB) ](/en/akn/ug/judgment/ugsc/2002/29/eng@2002-07-08/source) Toggle dropdown * [Download PDF](/en/akn/ug/judgment/ugsc/2002/29/eng@2002-07-08/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 (19.8 KB) ](/en/akn/ug/judgment/ugsc/2002/29/eng@2002-07-08/source) * [Download PDF](/en/akn/ug/judgment/ugsc/2002/29/eng@2002-07-08/source.pdf) * * * * * Report a problem __ ##### Kato Gabriel v Uganda [2002] UGSC 29 (8 July 2002) Copy citation __Save * __Document detail * __Related documents Citation Kato Gabriel v Uganda [2002] UGSC 29 (8 July 2002) Copy Media Neutral Citation [2002] UGSC 29 Copy Court [Supreme Court of Uganda](/en/judgments/UGSC/) Judgment date 8 July 2002 Language English Summary ###### Flynote * Criminal law|Evidence Law|Evaluation of Evidence Read full summary ###### Case summary The main ground was that the Court of Appeal erred in law and in fact when it failed to exhaustively evaluate the evidence and come to a finding that the defence of provocation was not available to the appellants. The court observed that the appellant had armed himself with a knife before going to the deceased and non-payment of the loan would not amount to provocation. The appeal was thereby dismissed __ ##### 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, MULENGA AND KANYEIHAMBA)**_ _**CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 6 OF 2001**_ _**BETWEEN**_ _**KATO GABRIEL:**____**APPELLANT**_ _**AND**_ _**UGANDA:**____**RESPONDENT**_ _**JUDGMENT OF THE COURT**_ The appellant was convicted of murder by the High Court at Mubende. He was sentenced to death His appeal to the Court of Appeal was unsuccessful. He has now appealed to this Court on one ground which is that the Court of Appeal erred in law and in fact when it failed to exhaustively evaluate the evidence and come to a finding that the defence of provocation was not available to the appellants. The appellant's learned Counsel argued the ground of appeal to that effect. With respect, we are unable to agree with the learned Counsel's submissions. We fine no merit in the appeal. The criticism of the Court of Appeal has no justification in our view. After considering the provisions of the law regarding provocation and the evidence in the case, the Court of Appeal concluded: **"We are u** _**n**_**able to** _**agree that the failure of the deceased to pay a loan of Shs 20,000= and h**_**is** _**refusal to go with the appellant to his mother to explain to her**_**whe** _**n he would pay the loan alone could amount to provocation sufficient In law to reduce the killing of the deceased from murder to manslaughter.**_**We** _**think the appellant armed himself with the knife and went with the deceased intendingto kill him and to steal the money he was going to buy coffee with. After**_**a full** _**consideration of all the circumstances we are of the view that the learned judge would have come to the same conclusion if he had directed his mind to the defence of provocation."**_ We agree with that conclusion of the Court of Appeal. In the circumstances, we find that the appeal must be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed. _**Dated at Mengo this 8**_ _**th**_ _**day of July, 2002.**_ **A.H.O. Oder** **_Justice the Supreme Court_** **J. W. N. Tsekooko** **_Justice of the Supreme Court_** **A.N.****Karokora** **_Justice_**** _of the Supreme Court_** **J.N.****Mulenga** **_Justice of the Supreme Court_** **G.W. Kanyeihamba** **_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 >