Wakilii

Adisi Elly and Another v Uganda (Consolidated Criminal Appeal No. 62 of 2021 & 512 of 2024)

Court of Appeal · [2026] UGCA 230 · 2026 Appeal Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First appeal from the High Court of Uganda at Arua against conviction for murder and sentence of life imprisonment
Decision
Appellants' conviction for murder upheld; sentence reduced from life imprisonment to 25 years imprisonment with credit for time on remand

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains 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 upheld the conviction for murder but reduced the sentence from life imprisonment to 25 years. The court found that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants participated in the murder based on circumstantial evidence placing them at the scene of crime. However, considering that the appellants were first-time offenders who were remorseful and capable of reformation, the court reduced the sentence to allow for rehabilitation and reintegration into society.

Outcome

Appellants' conviction for murder upheld; sentence reduced from life imprisonment to 25 years imprisonment with credit for time on remand

Facts

On 10 June 2018, the appellants together with others attacked the home of the deceased, Chandiru Lina, in Maracha district. The second appellant had misinformed the group that the deceased's son, Adriko Joseph, had killed her husband Charles Drani. The first appellant, an LC1 chairperson, mobilized the group who invaded the deceased's home with clubs and weapons demanding Joseph Adriko to come out. After beating Joseph Adriko who escaped, the complainant (PW1, the deceased's husband) was escorted away by some of the accused to seek transport for Charles Drani. The appellants remained at the scene. When PW1 returned with the LC1 chairman PW2, they found the deceased dead, hanging by a nylon rope tied around her neck to a roof pole, with a stool at a distance. The appellants and others had fled the scene. Post-mortem and scene of crime evidence confirmed unlawful killing. At trial, four co-accused were acquitted but the appellants were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment.

Issues

  1. Whether the learned trial Judge erred in law and fact when he found the Appellants guilty of murder in the absence of evidence of their participation.
  2. Whether the learned trial Judge erred in law and in fact when he passed a manifestly harsh and excessive sentence of life imprisonment against the Appellants thereby occasioning a miscarriage of justice.

Orders

  • Appeal against conviction dismissed.
  • Appeal against sentence partly allowed.
  • Sentence of life imprisonment set aside.
  • Appellants re-sentenced to 25 years of imprisonment from the date of conviction (5th October 2020).
  • Period of 2 years, 2 months and 26 days spent on remand deducted from the sentence.
  • Appellants to serve 22 years, 9 months and 4 days from 5th October 2020.

Rules and key headnotes

Murder — Proof of Participation — Circumstantial Evidence
To prove participation in a criminal offense, the prosecution must adduce evidence placing the accused person at the scene of the crime. The expression 'putting an accused person at the scene of crime' means proof to the required standard that the accused was at the scene of crime at the material time. The court must evaluate the evidence as a whole, not the prosecution evidence in isolation.
Circumstantial Evidence — Standard for Conviction
A court can base a conviction on circumstantial evidence. However, before drawing an inference of the accused's guilt from such evidence, the court must be sure that there are no other co-existing circumstances which would weaken or destroy the inference of guilt.
Common Intention — Inference from Presence and Conduct
Common intention may be inferred from the presence of the accused persons, their actions, and the omission of any of them to dissociate from the assault.
Sentencing — Appellate Intervention
An appellate court will not interfere with a sentence imposed by a trial court which has exercised its discretion on sentence unless the exercise of discretion results in imposing a sentence that is too harsh or so low as to amount to a miscarriage of justice.
Sentencing — Principles — Reformation and Rehabilitation
Sentencing is not only meant for punishing offenders but also serves as a mechanism to reform, rehabilitate, and reintegrate offenders into society. Where an offender is a first-time offender who is remorseful and capable of reformation, a sentence that allows for rehabilitation should be considered even in serious cases.
Sentencing — Murder — Sentencing Guidelines
Under the Constitution (Sentencing Guidelines for Courts of Judicature) (Practice) Directions 2013, the starting point for murder after taking into account both mitigating and aggravating factors is 30 years up to death. Courts must be guided by the sentencing ranges specified in the Third Schedule when determining appropriate custodial sentences in capital offenses.

Legislation cited (12)

Cases cited (21)

  • Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
  • Pandya V R (1957) E.A 336
  • Okeno V Republic (1972) E.A 32
  • Thiogo'o V Republic (2004) 1 EA 333 (CAK)
  • Suleiman Katushabe v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 7 of 1991)
  • Sekitoleko V Uganda [1967] EA 531
  • Bogere Moses and Anor V Uganda [1998] UGSC 22 (6 July 1998)
  • Abdulla Bin Wendo & Anor v R (1953) 20 EACA 166
  • Obwalatum Francis v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 30 of 2015)
  • Bogere Charles v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1996)
  • Kiwalabye Benard v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 4 of 2001)
  • Kyalimpa Edward v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1995)
  • Ndyomugenyi Patrick v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 57 of 2016)
  • Tumwesigye Reuben v Uganda (Court of Appeal Criminal Appeal No. 181 of 2013)
  • Atiku Lino v Uganda (Court of Appeal Criminal Appeal No. 41 of 2019)
  • Ntagezi Gad v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 2014)
  • Bacwa Benon v Uganda (Court of Appeal Criminal Appeal No. 869 of 2014)
  • Sebuliba Siraj v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 319 of 2009)
  • Okada Raymond and Others v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 51 of 2015)
  • Serubo Joseph v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 79 of 2014)
  • Bagambe Deus v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 164 of 2011)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Adisi Elly and Another v Uganda (Consolidated Criminal Appeal No. 62 of 2021 & 512 of 2024) [2026] UGCA 230 (23 July 2026)
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.