- Flynote
- Criminal law|Evidence Law|Evaluation of Evidence
- Case summary
- The court held that the trial judge did not err in admitting the two confession statements. Neither did the Court of Appeal err in upholding the decision of the trial judge.
THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF UGANDA
AT MENGO
CORAM: TSEKOOKO, KAROKORA, MULENGA, KANYEIHAMBA, AND KATUREEBE, JJ.SC.
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.01/2003.
BETWEEN
1. OKIROR LEO
APPELLANTS
2. OJAL PETER
VERSUS
UGANDA RESPONDENT
[Appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeal at Kampala (Manyindo, DCJ., Kato and Mpagi-Bahigeine,JJA) dated 14th December, 1999 in Criminal Appeal No. 11 of 1999]
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
In the High Court, the appellants were charged, tried and convicted of murder of two people. Their appeals to the Court of Appeal were dismissed. They have now appealed to this Court and each filed a separate memorandum of appeal.
Mr. Ojakol argued the appeal of the first appellant while Mr. Ssekabojja argued the appeal of the 2nd appellant. Both counsel challenged the admissibility in the trial court of confession statement made to the police by their respective clients. We did not find it necessary to hear Ms. Khisa, learned Senior Principal State Attorney.
We have considered the judgments of the trial court and that of the Court of Appeal. We are fully satisfied that the trial judge did not err in admitting the two confession statements. Neither did the Court of Appeal err in upholding the decision of the trial judge. These appeals have no merit. We therefore dismiss them.
Dated this 25th day of October, 2006.
J.W.N.TSEEKOOKO
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
B. KATUREEBE.
JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT.