Turyamwijuka v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 65 of 2008)

Court of Appeal · [2015] UGCA 68 · 2015 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

Criminal appeal from High Court conviction and death sentence for murder

Decision

Appeal dismissed; conviction and death sentence imposed by the High Court confirmed.

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 3 (treatment unverified) Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions — always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant's appeal against his conviction on two counts of murder of his two wives. The court held that malice aforethought was established from the lethal weapon (a panga), the deep cut wounds to vulnerable parts of the body, and the circumstances of the killing. The evidence of PW3, a 15-year-old son who was not a child of tender years and was familiar with the appellant, was found corroborated and reliable. The appellant's voluntary charge and caution statement and blood-stained surrender at police reinforced participation. The death sentence, being the maximum lawful penalty imposed in the trial judge's properly exercised discretion, was not manifestly excessive. Conviction and sentence confirmed.

Facts

On the night of 26 May 2005, the appellant returned home, had supper with his first wife Kekigombe Dinnah and their children, and retired to the bedroom. Around 1.00 am the children heard the deceased shouting that the appellant was killing her. The appellant emerged with a stick and struck his second wife, Bashabe Maria, who had responded to the alarm, then pursued her with a panga as she fled to the banana plantation. The frightened children hid until morning. The next day the body of Kekigombe was found in her bedroom with many cuts, and Bashabe's body was found in the plantation in a pool of blood with several cut wounds. Postmortems showed death by severe hemorrhage from cut wounds. The appellant walked to Lyantonde Police, surrendered with the panga, blood-stained, and made a charge and caution statement admitting he killed both wives. He was charged with murder, convicted and sentenced to death by the High Court.

Issues

Whether the prosecution proved malice aforethought so as to sustain a conviction for murder rather than manslaughter.
Whether the evidence of a single identifying witness who was a minor (PW3) required corroboration and was sufficient to support the conviction.
Whether the death sentence imposed by the trial court was manifestly excessive and should be reduced.

Orders

Appeal dismissed.
Conviction confirmed.
Sentence of death confirmed.

Key headnotes

Murder — Malice Aforethought — Inference from Weapon and Manner of Killing

Malice aforethought may be inferred from circumstantial evidence including the mode of killing, the lethal nature of the weapon used, and the vulnerable part of the body assailed and injured.

Identification — Single Identifying Witness — Need for Caution and Corroboration

A court may convict on the identification of a single witness, tested with the greatest care, provided that where conditions for identification were difficult there is other evidence pointing to guilt or the judge adverts to the danger of relying on such evidence alone.

Identification by Voice — Acceptability Where Witness Familiar with the Person

Identification of a person by voice alone may, where the court is satisfied, be accepted as the sole basis for conviction, particularly where the witness is closely familiar with the voice.

Child Witness — Determination of Child of Tender Years

A child of about 14 years or below should prompt the court to consider a voire dire; a witness of 15 years is not a child of tender years requiring such examination.

Sentencing — Appellate Interference with Trial Court's Discretion

An appellate court will not interfere with a sentence lawfully imposed in the trial court's discretion unless it is manifestly excessive or so low as to amount to a miscarriage of justice, the trial court ignored an important matter, or the sentence is wrong in principle.

Legislation cited (3)

Penal Code Act s.188
Penal Code Act s.189
Penal Code Act s.191

Cases cited (6)

Nanyonjo Harriet and Another v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 24 of 2002)
R vs Tubere s/o Ochen (1945) EACA 63
Moses Bogere v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1997)
Abdulah Nabulele and Two Others v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 9 of 1978)
Patrick Akol v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 23 of 1992)
Kiwalabye Bernard v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 143 of 2001)

Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.