Court of Appeal Suspends Convictions of Civilians Tried by Military Court

By Skika Reporter

The Court of Appeal has suspended the conviction and sentences of two men previously found guilty of murder and aggravated robbery over a deadly attack at a hardware shop in Masaka Municipality, ordering that their case be reviewed or retried by a civilian court.

In a judgment delivered on Monday, a panel of justices Geoffrey Kiryabwire, Ketrah Kitarisibwa Katunguka and Cornelia Kakooza Sabiiti ruled that the convictions and sentences imposed on Matia Kiiza Bukenya and Derrick Jumba could not stand because they had been tried by a military court despite being civilians.

“The conviction and sentence of the appellants is hereby suspended,” the justices ruled. “This matter is referred for review and or retrial by a civilian court of competent jurisdiction to make a fresh determination of this case accordingly.”

The decision follows a landmark Supreme Court ruling that declared the trial of civilians before the General Court Martial unconstitutional.

Background of the case

According to court records, the case arises from a robbery that occurred on July 1, 2018, at Moses K. Hardware in Masaka Municipality.

Prosecutors alleged that Bukenya and Jumba, together with others still at large, raided the shop during which they shot and killed Moses Musinguzi, a member of the Reserve Force, and took his sub-machine gun rifle along with 30 rounds of ammunition.

The attackers were also accused of killing a casual labourer at the shop, Shalif Kiggundu, and stealing Shs435,705,500 belonging to the shop owner, Moses Kalisa.

Following their arrest, the suspects were arraigned before the General Court Martial. Although they initially pleaded not guilty, the two later changed their plea to guilty and were convicted on their own plea before being sentenced to 40 years in prison.

They subsequently appealed to the Court Martial Appeal Court sitting in Makindye, which upheld their conviction but reduced the sentence from 40 years to 30 years’ imprisonment on each count, to run concurrently.

Appeal to the Court of Appeal

Still dissatisfied, the two men filed a second appeal before the Court of Appeal challenging both their conviction and the legality of the proceedings.

Through their lawyer, Henry Kunya, the appellants argued that the military courts lacked jurisdiction to try them because they were civilians.

The defence relied on the Supreme Court’s January 31, 2025 decision in Attorney General v Michael Kabaziguruka, which declared the trial of civilians before the General Court Martial unconstitutional.

Counsel submitted that the General Court Martial is a court of limited jurisdiction and therefore acted outside its mandate by trying civilians.

He further argued that any judgment delivered by a court without jurisdiction is a nullity and must be set aside.

The state, represented by Chief State Attorney Joseph Kyomuhendo, opposed the appeal, contending that the law does not provide for a further appeal from the Court Martial Appeal Court to the Court of Appeal.

The prosecution maintained that appeals are strictly created by statute and that neither the Constitution nor provisions of the Uganda People’s Defence Forces Act allow such an appeal.

Court’s ruling

However, the appellate justices noted that the Supreme Court had already pronounced itself on the matter and that they were bound by the precedent.

“Jurisdiction is everything, and without it a court has no power to make one more step,” the judges said, citing established legal principles.

Guided by the Supreme Court’s interpretation in the Kabaziguruka case, the court concluded that the appropriate course was to suspend the convictions and allow a civilian court to reconsider the matter.

The justices further noted that the Supreme Court had earlier directed that cases involving civilians previously tried in military courts should be referred to ordinary courts for fresh determination.

As part of the final orders, the court directed that the appellants remain in custody as the case is reviewed or retried.

“The appellants are remanded to prison pending the fresh determination of their offences,” the court ruled.

The matter will now be handled by a civilian court with jurisdiction to determine the charges against the two men.