Wakilii

Bulila & Another v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 61 of 2015)

Supreme Court · [2021] UGSC 10 · 2021 Appeal Partly Allowed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Second criminal appeal from Court of Appeal decision affirming High Court murder convictions and sentences
Decision
Convictions of both appellants upheld; 1st appellant's sentence set aside and substituted with 25 years and 1 month imprisonment; 2nd appellant's 25-year sentence upheld; appeal otherwise dismissed.

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 Supreme Court upheld the murder convictions, holding that the circumstantial evidence — particularly PW1's account linking the murder weapon to the 1st appellant's car and the appellants' association with the executioner Eric — was incompatible with their innocence and established a common intention under section 20 of the Penal Code Act. The 2nd appellant's conduct formed part of the plan that ended the deceased's life. However, the Court of Appeal erred in resentencing the 1st appellant without deducting his remand period; his sentence was set aside and substituted with 25 years and one month. The 2nd appellant's 25-year sentence was upheld. The appeal was dismissed save on the 1st appellant's sentence.

Facts

On 14 March 2008, at about 1:00 a.m., the deceased Winkle Karitundu (alias Rutamirika), husband of the 2nd appellant and co-owner of Texas Pub and Health Club in Nsambya, was fatally hacked at his home shortly after leaving the club with his wife. A blood-stained piece of wood and a panga were recovered at the scene. PW1, a club worker, testified that Eric — an associate of the 1st appellant who is still at large and believed to have executed the killing — had him sharpen a piece of wood at the club, which Eric then placed in the 1st appellant's car. Forensic evidence (PW3) matched the deceased's DNA on the recovered wood. Evidence showed the appellants had been in each other's company and with Eric before the killing; telephone printouts showed several calls between the appellants around the time of the murder; and the 2nd appellant's passport photographs were found in the 1st appellant's wallet. The deceased's vehicle, often driven by the 2nd appellant, was used to store the weapon. Both appellants were convicted of murder.

Issues

  1. Whether the Court of Appeal relied on weak or unsatisfactory circumstantial evidence to confirm the appellants' convictions.
  2. Whether the appellants formed a common intention with others to kill the deceased.
  3. Whether the Court of Appeal failed to consider the conduct of the 2nd appellant, which was that of an innocent person.
  4. Whether the sentences were illegal for failing to deduct the period the appellants had spent on remand.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed save for the ground on the sentence of the 1st appellant.
  • The sentence of the 1st appellant is set aside.
  • The 1st appellant is resentenced to 25 years and 1 month imprisonment, effective from the time of conviction.
  • The 2nd appellant's sentence of 25 years imprisonment is upheld.

Key headnotes

Evidence — Circumstantial Evidence — Test for Conviction
A conviction founded on circumstantial evidence may stand only where the inculpatory facts are incompatible with the innocence of the accused and incapable of explanation upon any reasonable hypothesis other than that of guilt, with no co-existing circumstances that weaken or destroy the inference.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Common Intention — Section 20 Penal Code Act
Where two or more persons form a common intention to prosecute an unlawful purpose together and an offence is committed that is a probable consequence of that purpose, each is deemed to have committed the offence, even if they did not personally execute the killing.
Evidence — Conduct of Accused — Inference of Participation
The conduct of an accused before or after the offence may give insight into participation; conduct apparently consistent with innocence does not exonerate where other evidence shows the accused used inside knowledge to set a trap for the victim.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Sentencing — Deduction of Remand Period
A sentencing court must take into account and, where required, arithmetically deduct the period an accused spent on remand; a sentence that makes no mention of the remand period is liable to be set aside, though the arithmetic-deduction rule in Rwabugande does not apply retrospectively to sentences passed before 3 March 2017.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Second Appeal — Duty of Second Appellate Court
A second appellate court's duty is to determine whether the first appellate court failed to re-evaluate the trial evidence and reach its own conclusion, and it may interfere only where such a failure of re-evaluation is shown.

Legislation cited (5)

  • Penal Code Act s.188
  • Penal Code Act s.189
  • Penal Code Act s.20
  • Judicature Act s.7
  • Constitution of Uganda art.23(8)

Cases cited (7)

  • Okethi Okale v R [1965] EA 555
  • Simon Musoke v R [1958] EA 715
  • Teper vs. R (2) AC 480
  • Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 7 of 1997)
  • Rwabugande Moses v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 2014)
  • Sebunya Robert and Kakuma Tonny v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 58 of 2016)
  • Rex v Tubere s/o Ochen (1945) 12 EACA 68
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.