Court name
High Court of Uganda
Judgment date
5 December 2000

Nkeza Kaloli v Uganda (Criminal Appeal-2000/28) [2000] UGHC 19 (05 December 2000);

Cite this case
[2000] UGHC 19


 


THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.28 OF 2000
(ORIGINAL KIBOGA CRIMINAL CASE NO.74 OF 2000)
 

NKEZA KALOLI::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ACCUSED
VERSUS
UGANDA .::::.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: PROSECUTION

BEFORE: THE HONOURABLE MR. AG. JUSTICE PAUL K. MUGAMBA 
JUDGMENT:
The appellant, Nkeza Kaloli, was charged together with one Rwamunono Robert, a juvenile. The charge brought against the two was that of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, contrary to section 228 of the Penal Code Act. For the purposes of this appeal, the appellant was convicted as charged and sentenced to two years’ imprisonment. He appeals against conviction and sentence.

All in all the appellant set out six grounds of appeal and these were as follows:

1.       The trial magistrate erred in law and in fact in his interpretation and application of the well-established law and principles regarding identification.

2.       The learned trial Magistrate erred in law and in fact in the assessment, interpretation and application of the law on contradictions and inconsistencies.

3.       The learned trial Magistrate erred in law and in fact when he considered the contradictions and inconsistencies made by the defence only.

4.       The learned trial Magistrate erred in law and in fact when he ruled that there was a prima facie case against the defendant whereas not.

5.       The trial Magistrate erred in law and in fact in accessing the whole evidence the matter and consequently reached a wrong decision thereof.

6.       The trial Magistrate erred in law and in fact in passing a severe sentence when there was no sufficient evidence against the appellant.

In his submission, Mr. Muhimbura, counsel for the appellant said that the appellant had not been positively identified since he was unknown in the village and since the alleged incident took place at night when conditions for identification were not favourable. Counsel further argued that there was no corroboration that the person produced in court was the one who had been arrested on the night in issue. The prosecution called five witnesses. PW1, PW2 and PW3 all testified to having seen the appellant that night at