Wakilii

Asiimwe & Anor v Uganda (HCT-04-CR-CN-0048-2009)

High Court · [2011] UGHCCRD 85 · 2011 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal appeal from Chief Magistrate's Court conviction for conspiracy to murder
Decision
Appellants' conviction and sentence upheld; appeal dismissed

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 High Court dismissed the appeal against conviction for conspiracy to murder under section 208 of the Penal Code Act. The court held that the trial magistrate properly evaluated the evidence and that the prosecution proved the conspiracy through testimony of the army operatives who were approached to kill the victim, corroborated by telephone records showing communications between the conspirators, and overt acts including the pointing out of the victim at Wandegeya and payment of money for facilitation. The conviction was proper despite defence arguments about selective witness presentation and delayed prosecution.

Outcome

Appellants' conviction and sentence upheld; appeal dismissed

Facts

Hajji Musaayi owned land at Mawagulu Mawokota with tenants including Wasswa Gonzaga (A2). Disputes arose over resettlement. On 18 December 2007, Musaayi's surveyors were assaulted and their vehicle vandalized on the land. A2 was charged with assault and malicious damage in Mpigi court but was acquitted in 2009. In December 2007, Asiimwe Godfrey (A1), A2's brother, contacted an army officer named Mulumba for help dealing with Musaayi. Mulumba linked A1 to two UPDF operatives from the Rapid Response Unit (PW2 and PW3). A1 and A2 met the operatives and offered them 3 million shillings to kill Musaayi. The appellants took the operatives to Wandegeya and pointed out Musaayi, described as wearing a kanzu with scars on his head. The appellants paid 30,000 shillings for fuel and 20,000 shillings for airtime. When the operatives reported the plot to RPC Bitwire, A2 was arrested at Central Police Station. Both appellants were convicted by the Chief Magistrate of conspiracy to murder and sentenced to three years imprisonment.

Issues

  1. Whether the trial magistrate erred in law and fact by convicting the appellants on the basis of MTN communications printout evidence.
  2. Whether the trial magistrate erred in law and fact by relying on uncorroborated evidence of accomplices without exhibiting alleged payment as evidence of an overt act.
  3. Whether the trial magistrate erred by relying on the weakness of the defence case rather than the strength of the prosecution case.
  4. Whether the trial magistrate properly evaluated the evidence on record.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Conviction for conspiracy to murder upheld.
  • Sentence of three years imprisonment upheld.

Rules and key headnotes

Criminal Law & Procedure — Appeals — Duty of First Appellate Court
The duty of a first appellate court is to reconsider all material evidence that was before the trial court, and while making allowance for the fact that it has neither seen nor heard the witnesses, to come to its own conclusion on that evidence, considering the evidence on any issue in its totality and not any piece in isolation.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Conspiracy to Murder — Elements of Offence
To prove conspiracy to murder under section 208 of the Penal Code Act, the prosecution must establish that two or more persons came to a mutual understanding to accomplish a common and unlawful plan, that the accused wilfully became a member of such conspiracy, that one conspirator knowingly committed at least one overt act described in the charge during the existence of the conspiracy, and that such overt act was knowingly committed in an effort to accomplish the object of the conspiracy.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Conspiracy — Overt Acts
An overt act is any transaction or event which may be entirely innocent when considered alone, but which is knowingly committed by a conspirator in an effort to accomplish some object of the conspiracy. Every act in furtherance of the commission of the offence, or every act of conspiring with any person to effect that purpose, and every act done in furtherance of the purpose by any person conspiring, shall be deemed to be an overt act manifesting the intention.
Evidence — Corroboration — Telephone Call Records
Telephone call records (printouts from telecommunications data centre) showing communication between alleged conspirators at the material time when a criminal plan was hatched are admissible to corroborate evidence that communication occurred between the parties, even if the printouts do not show the content of the telephone conversations.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Conspiracy — Proof through Circumstantial Evidence
Overt acts manifesting conspiracy to murder include taking intended accomplices to identify the victim, paying money for facilitation of the crime (fuel and airtime), and making telephone communications in furtherance of the plan. Where such acts are proved along with an agreement to kill, conspiracy is established regardless of whether the money promised as reward was exhibited as evidence.

Legislation cited (1)

Cases cited (6)

  • Baguma Fred v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 7 of 2004)
  • Pandya v R [1957] EA 336
  • Ruwala v R [1957] EA 570
  • Bogere Moses v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1997)
  • Okethi Okale v Republic [1965] EA 555
  • Hofni Topacho Ongiretho and 2 Others v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1993)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Asiimwe & Anor v Uganda (HCT-04-CR-CN-0048-2009) [2011] UGHCCRD 85 (10 June 2011)
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.