Wakilii

Naziwa v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 633 of 2014)

Court of Appeal · [2025] UGCA 107 · 2025 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal appeal against conviction and sentence from the High Court at Mubende.
Decision
Appeal against conviction and sentence dismissed; appellant to continue serving the 30-year sentence of imprisonment.

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment

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 appeal against conviction and sentence for murder. It held that circumstantial evidence placing the appellant at the scene, corroborated by her detailed charge-and-caution confession and the post-mortem report, was incompatible with innocence and excluded any other reasonable hypothesis than guilt. The court rejected the unsubstantiated claims of torture and alibi. On sentence, it held the 30-year term was unambiguous and not manifestly excessive, and that the trial judge had expressly taken the four years spent on remand into account, as Article 23(8) of the Constitution and Guideline 15 of the Sentencing Guidelines require. Conviction and sentence upheld.

Facts

On 11 October 2009 at Kawumulwa Parish, Kiyuni sub-county, Mubende district, a three-month-old baby, Brenda Nakubulwa, was taken from a house where she had been left sleeping by her mother. The mother noticed the baby's absence and raised an alarm. The baby was found about 1.5 kilometres away, alive but mutilated, with pieces cut from her tongue and private parts. She was rushed to Mubende referral hospital and died on 12 October 2009; the post-mortem attributed death to asphyxia and pain shock and showed internal injuries with a dislocation. Police arrested the appellant as she boarded a taxi to Kampala. In a charge-and-caution statement she admitted taking the baby to obtain body parts for fertility medicine at the request of one Kanzaalu, and to cutting pieces from the child. PW4 Steven Bukenya placed her at the scene around 8 to 9 pm; she had asked him to summon her brothers and was gone when he returned. She raised a defence of alibi and alleged she had been tortured before recording the statement.

Issues

  1. Whether the conviction was based on inconclusive and weak circumstantial evidence that did not irresistibly point to the appellant's guilt.
  2. Whether the trial judge acted on a wrong principle in passing an ambiguous, manifestly harsh and excessive sentence.
  3. Whether the trial judge took into account the period the appellant spent on remand as required by Article 23(8) of the Constitution.

Orders

  • The appellant will continue to serve the sentence of 30 years.
  • The period spent on remand of 4 years was taken into account.
  • The appellant will serve the sentence of 30 years from the date of sentence by the trial court.

Key headnotes

Criminal Law — Murder — Ingredients of the offence
To establish murder under section 188 of the Penal Code Act the prosecution must prove the death of a human being, that the death was caused by an unlawful act or omission of the accused, the participation of the accused, and that the accused acted with malice aforethought.
Criminal Law — Malice aforethought — Inference from facts
Malice aforethought, being the state of mind of the accused, may be inferred from the facts; a person who inflicts injuries causing asphyxia and pain shock that result in death is taken to have had the requisite malice aforethought under section 91 of the Penal Code Act.
Evidence — Circumstantial Evidence — Standard for conviction
Where the prosecution case depends solely on circumstantial evidence, the inculpatory facts must be incompatible with the innocence of the accused and incapable of explanation upon any reasonable hypothesis other than guilt, and the court must be satisfied that there are no co-existing circumstances weakening or destroying the inference of guilt.
Evidence — Confessions — Corroboration by independent evidence
A charge-and-caution statement disclosing detailed knowledge of the commission of the offence may found a conviction where it is corroborated by independent evidence such as a post-mortem report and eyewitness testimony placing the accused at the scene.
Criminal Procedure — Defence of alibi — Burden of substantiation
An accused who raises a defence of alibi but calls no evidence to substantiate it fails to displace prosecution evidence placing the accused at the scene of the crime.
Sentencing — Appellate interference with sentence
An appellate court will not interfere with a sentence imposed in the exercise of the trial court's discretion unless the sentence is manifestly excessive or low so as to amount to a miscarriage of justice, or the trial court acted on a wrong principle or ignored a material matter that ought to have been considered.
Sentencing — Deduction of period spent on remand
The requirement to take into account the period spent on remand derives from Article 23(8) of the Constitution (promulgated in 1995) and Guideline 15 of the Sentencing Guidelines; where the trial judge expressly states that the remand period was taken into account before sentencing, the sentence is not rendered ambiguous, unconstitutional or illegal.

Legislation cited (6)

  • Penal Code Act s.188
  • Penal Code Act s.189
  • Penal Code Act s.91
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 23(8)
  • Court of Appeal Rules r.30(1)
  • Constitution (Sentencing Guidelines for Courts of Judicature) (Practice) Directions Guideline 15

Cases cited (18)

  • Kiwalabye Bernard v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 143 of 2001)
  • Akbar Hussein Dodi v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 2013)
  • Simon Musoke v R, (1958) EA 715
  • Turyahabute Ezra and 12 Others v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 50 of 2014)
  • Munga Godfrey v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 4 of 2011)
  • Wandubire Clement v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 41 of 2017)
  • Rwabugande Moses v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 2014)
  • Kizito Senkula v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 24 of 2001)
  • Byamukamo Herbert v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 21 of 2014)
  • Nashimolo Paul Kibolo v Uganda, SCCA 46 of 2017
  • Sebunga Robert and Another v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 58 of 2016)
  • Mazika and Another v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 129 of 2020 and Criminal Appeal No. 39 of 2020) [2023] UGCA 239
  • Tumuheinte v Uganda, (1967) EA 328
  • Byaruhanga Fodori v Uganda, SCCA 18 of 20[..]
  • Teper v R, (2) AC 480
  • Tindigwihura Mbahe v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 9 of 1987)
  • Sharma Kooky Kumar v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 44 of 2000)
  • Miller v Minister of Pensions, [1947] 2 All ER 372
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.