Supreme Court faults appeal court over murder convict’s discharge
Kaye had been convicted of murdering Topista Nakanyike on April 3, 2009, at Munyolwe Village in Nakaseke District and sentenced to 30 years in prison by the High Court sitting at Luwero.
The justices held that the Court of Appeal should have remitted the case file to the High Court for the trial judge to write a judgment based on the evidence already on record. (File photo)
________________
The Supreme Court has faulted the Court of Appeal for discharging a man convicted of murder after the High Court’s judgment explaining the reasons for his conviction went missing.
The Supreme Court ruled that although the Court of Appeal was right to set aside the conviction and sentence because of the missing judgment and to decline to order a retrial, it erred in discharging Samuel Kaye without considering the option of sending the case back to the High Court for judgment writing.
Kaye had been convicted of murdering Topista Nakanyike on April 3, 2009, at Munyolwe Village in Nakaseke District and sentenced to 30 years in prison by the High Court sitting at Luwero.
A panel of five Supreme Court justices; Lillian Tibatemwa Ekirikubinza, Percy Night Tuhaise, Mike Chibita, Elizabeth Musoke and Monica Kalyegira Mugenyi, made the declarations in a judgment arising from an appeal by the prosecution.
The justices held that the Court of Appeal should have remitted the case file to the High Court for the trial judge to write a judgment based on the evidence already on record.
The court noted that the transcript of the original trial proceedings, containing the evidence, was complete and available.
“The more appropriate course ought to have been for the Court of Appeal to remit the case file back to the High Court for judgment writing,” the Supreme Court justices held.
The Supreme Court, however, clarified that its declaratory judgment did not reverse the Court of Appeal’s decision to discharge Kaye from custody after setting aside his murder conviction and sentence.
Prosecution evidence presented during the trial indicated that Kaye and another man attacked Nakanyike as she cultivated her garden, assaulting her with kicks, bodily blows and a blunt weapon.
A postmortem examination report attributed her death to strangulation and beatings.
Court records further indicated that Kaye and the deceased had a dispute over ownership of land on which her garden was situated.
After his conviction, Kaye sought to appeal, but was not provided with a copy of the written judgment setting out the trial judge’s reasons for the decision.
Although the trial court proceedings indicated that the judge had read the judgment in open court on November 8, 2011, the document was never availed to either the prosecution or Kaye.
In his appeal to the Court of Appeal, Kaye argued that the failure to provide the judgment had occasioned a miscarriage of justice.
The Court of Appeal subsequently quashed his conviction and set aside the 30-year sentence, ruling that the missing High Court judgment made it impossible to determine his appeal.
The appellate court declined to order a retrial, reasoning that about 12 years had elapsed since the original trial and that the passage of time could have affected witnesses’ memories and the reliability of their evidence.
The court instead ordered Kaye's discharge, noting that he had not contributed to the loss of the judgement.
Prosecution submitted that the Court of Appeal should either have re-evaluated the evidence on record, ordered a retrial or directed the original trial judge to prepare another judgement.
In considering the appeal, the Supreme Court held that a written judgment is a mandatory requirement in criminal trials conducted on indictment.
The justices explained that the judgment must identify the issues for determination, the court’s decision and the reasons for that decision.
They observed that the absence of a written judgement made it impossible for an appellate court to properly determine an appeal against conviction because the reasons for the trial court’s decision were unavailable.
The Supreme Court rejected the argument that the Court of Appeal could simply evaluate the evidence and decide whether to uphold the conviction, explaining that doing so would effectively turn it into a trial court.
On the question of a retrial, the Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeal that it would not have been appropriate under the circumstances.
However, the justices found that the Court of Appeal had failed to consider its powers under Rule 32(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules, which allows it to remit proceedings to the High Court with appropriate directions.
The Supreme Court said the option was available because the transcript of the original trial, including the evidence, remained on record.
It further held that discharging Kaye without considering this alternative failed to adequately take into account the interests of the deceased’s family and society.
The Supreme Court consequently allowed the prosecution’s appeal and declared that the Court of Appeal should have sent the case file back to the High Court for judgment writing.