By Hillary Nsambu
A criminal appeal in which city tycoon Godfrey Kato-Kajubi seeks to quash the conviction and the sentence for natural life in prison meted against him for ritual murder by the High Court has flopped.
Principal State Attorneys Simon Semalemba and Michael Ojok, who represented the Director of Public Prosecutions, told the Court of Appeal Wednesday that the appellant had amended his memorandum of appeal on the DPP late.
The attorneys also argued that apart from receiving Kajubi’s memorandum of appeal late, they did not receive the hearing notice of appeal. “We came to know about the hearing of this appeal only yesterday and; we did not have ample time to peruse through the voluminous record of appeal.”
Anthony Wameli, the lawyer representing Kajubi, confirmed to court that the appellant’s memorandum, of appeal that has 13 grounds on which they base their appeal was served on the DPP on December 5, 2013; but requested the court to give them an earlier date for their appeal.
However, Justice Eldad Mwangusya, who chaired the coram, ruled that since the criminal appeal session was coming to end on December 20, 2013, the appellant’s appeal would be heard in the next convenient session.
The other Justices on the panel were Faith Mwondha and Prof Lillian Tebatemwa.
Kajubi appeared calm and composed all the time in court. He spent some time consulting his lawyer, Wameli, after his case had been adjourned.
Kajubi was indicted, prosecuted, convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for his natural life after the prosecution had proved that he procured the murder of a-12-year-old school boy Joseph Kasirye, in what was said a ritual sacrifice carried out at Kayugi village, Mukungwe sub-county, Masaka District in 2008.
His conviction and sentence came in a retrial ordered by the Court of appeal after the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) had appealed against his initial trial in the High Court had ended up in a no case to answer acquittal.
The Court of Appeal had found that the first trial judge had made a mistake to acquit him on a no case to answer when the prosecution had established a prima facie case in which Kajubi was required to answer a lot that had been left unanswered and; he had to be retried.