Wakilii

Kayita Mariko and Another v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 173 of 2022)

Court of Appeal · [2026] UGCA 23 · 2026 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First criminal appeal from High Court conviction and sentence for murder
Decision
Appeal dismissed; murder convictions and sentences (31 years 9 months' imprisonment after remand deduction) upheld

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 of two men convicted of murder, holding that the circumstantial evidence formed a complete chain pointing only to guilt: the appellants were the last persons seen with the deceased, the first appellant had a land conflict with and had threatened the deceased, and he was seen carrying a panga near where the body and the slaughtered sheep's carcass were later found. The appellants' alibi was an unconvincing afterthought, and the contradictions in the prosecution evidence were minor. Applying the 'last seen' doctrine, the appellants failed to explain how the deceased met his death. The 35-year sentence (reduced to 31 years 9 months for remand) was within range and the Court declined to interfere.

Facts

The deceased, Sunday Giita Yoakim, lost his sheep on 20 April 2019. The next morning the first appellant (the deceased's brother) and the second appellant (the first appellant's son) visited the deceased's home and offered to take him to see a slaughtered sheep's carcass. PW2 saw the deceased leave with them; he never returned. His body was found the following day with deep cut wounds to the neck and lumbar region, roughly 300 metres from where PW4 had seen the first appellant carrying a panga, and about 10 metres from a sheep's carcass. The first appellant had a long-running dispute with the deceased over land from their father's estate and had threatened to kill him, a conflict their elder brother (PW6) had unsuccessfully tried to settle. The appellants raised an alibi, claiming they were elsewhere buying goats and drinking alcohol. They were convicted of murder and sentenced to 35 years' imprisonment, reduced to 31 years 9 months after deducting time on remand.

Issues

  1. Whether the trial Judge erred in relying on circumstantial evidence to convict the appellants of murder.
  2. Whether the appellants' participation in the murder was proved beyond reasonable doubt.
  3. Whether the trial Judge erred in rejecting the appellants' defence of alibi.
  4. Whether the contradictions and inconsistencies in the prosecution evidence were material and warranted rejection of that evidence.
  5. Whether the sentence of 35 years' imprisonment was manifestly harsh and excessive.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Conviction of each appellant confirmed.
  • Sentences imposed by the trial Judge upheld.
  • The appellants shall continue to serve the sentence imposed by the trial Judge.

Key headnotes

Criminal Evidence — Circumstantial Evidence — Requirement of a Complete and Unbroken Chain
A conviction founded on circumstantial evidence is only sustainable where the inculpatory facts are incompatible with the innocence of the accused and incapable of explanation upon any other reasonable hypothesis than guilt; the chain of evidence must be complete and unbroken.
Circumstantial Evidence — Last Seen Doctrine — Burden to Explain Death
Where the deceased was last seen alive in the company of the accused and the circumstantial evidence leads to no other reasonable conclusion, a duty falls on the accused to explain how the deceased met his death; absent a satisfactory explanation, the court is justified in inferring that the accused killed the deceased.
Defence of Alibi — Timely Disclosure — Evaluation
An accused who relies on an alibi does not assume the burden of proving it, but should disclose it at the earliest opportunity; an alibi raised only at the defence stage, after strong unchallenged prosecution evidence, may be treated as an afterthought and rejected where the prosecution evidence places the accused at the scene.
Contradictions and Inconsistencies — Minor Discrepancies — Effect on Conviction
Contradictions and inconsistencies in prosecution evidence that are minor and do not go to the root of the case do not vitiate a conviction; only grave contradictions that point to deliberate untruthfulness will be fatal to the prosecution case.
Sentencing — Appellate Interference with Sentence — Principles
An appellate court will not interfere with the sentence of a trial court unless the trial court acted on a wrong principle, overlooked a material factor, failed to exercise its discretion, or the sentence is manifestly excessive having regard to the circumstances of the case.

Legislation cited (3)

  • Penal Code Act Cap 128 s.188 [now s.171]
  • Penal Code Act Cap 128 s.189 [now s.172]
  • Constitution (Sentencing Guidelines for Courts of Judicature) (Practice) Directions, 2013, Guideline 6

Cases cited (41)

  • Baguma Fred v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 7 of 2004)
  • Amisi Dhatemwa alias Waibi v Uganda (Court of Appeal Criminal Appeal No. 23 of 1977)
  • Magemeso Mohammed v Uganda (Court of Appeal Criminal Appeal No. 235 of 2011)
  • Woolmington v DPP [1935] AC 462
  • Simon Musoke v R [1957] EA 715
  • Bogere Moses & Anor v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1997)
  • Akbar Hussein Godi v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 2013)
  • Pte Wepukhuzu Nyuguzi v Uganda [2002] UGSC 14
  • Alfred Tajar v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 167 of 1969) [EACA]
  • Wasswa Stephen & Ors v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 31 of 1991)
  • Obwalatum Francis v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 48 of 2011)
  • Tukamushaba Justus v Uganda (Court of Appeal Criminal Appeal No. 190 of 2013)
  • S v Makwanyane 1995 (3) SA 391
  • Aharikundira Yusitina v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 27 of 2015)
  • Mbuya Godfrey -v- Uganda, Supreme Court ... of 2011
  • Esiya Seku v Uganda (Court of Appeal Criminal Appeal No. 219 and 488 of 2015)
  • Tumwesigye Anthony v Uganda [2014] UGCA 51
  • Mwesigwa John and Ors v Uganda (Court of Appeal Criminal Appeal No. 164 and 392 of 2014)
  • Magala Ramathan v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 2014)
  • Ndwandwe v Rex [2012] SZSC 39
  • Festo Androa Asenua & Anor v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1998)
  • R v Chemulon Wero Olango (1937) 4 EACA 46
  • R v Sukha Singh s/o Wazir Singh & Others (1939) 6 EACA 145
  • Busingye Paul & Ampereza Lawrence v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 48 of 2022 and 56 of 2019)
  • Moses Jua v The State (2007) JELR 44034 (CA), CA/IL/42/2006
  • Musyoka Maingi Nguli v Republic [2019] eKLR
  • Stephen Haruna v The Attorney-General of the Federation (2010)
  • Ogalo s/o Owoura v R (1954) 21 EACA 270
  • James v R (1950) 18 EACA 142
  • Kamya Johnson Wavamuno v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 16 of 2000)
  • Kiwalabye v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 143 of 2001)
  • Rwabugande Moses v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 2014)
  • Nakhokho Phillip v Uganda (Court of Appeal Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 2020)
  • Makonzi Patrick v Uganda (Court of Appeal Criminal Appeal No. 218 of 2018)
  • Afidra Frigona v Uganda (Court of Appeal Criminal Appeal No. 343 of 2019)
  • Kaddu Kavulu Lawrence v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 72 of 2018)
  • Aharikundira v Uganda [2018] UGSC 49
  • Emot Moses v Uganda (Court of Appeal Criminal Appeal No. 555 and 533 of 2016)
  • Bukenya Muhammed & 2 Others v Uganda (Court of Appeal Criminal Appeal No. 903 of 2019)
  • Sebuliba v Uganda (Court of Appeal Criminal Appeal No. 319 of 2009)
  • Mugero Patrick & Anor v Uganda (Court of Appeal Criminal Appeal No. 76 of 2019)
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.