Wakilii

Baryayesiima Don Kizito and Another v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 7 of 2019)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 1083 · 2025 Appeal Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal appeal from conviction and sentence by Chief Magistrate's Court
Decision
Conviction upheld; sentence reduced to 12 years and 11 months imprisonment from 25 February 2019

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 attempted murder, holding that telephone data evidence and witness testimony sufficiently placed the appellants at the scene and proved their participation. The trial court properly evaluated both prosecution and defence evidence. However, the appeal on sentence succeeded because the trial court failed to arithmetically deduct the remand period of one year and one month as required by law. The sentence was reduced from 14 years to 12 years and 11 months.

Outcome

Conviction upheld; sentence reduced to 12 years and 11 months imprisonment from 25 February 2019

Facts

On 8 November 2017 at Kilembe Cell, Mbarara District, the appellants and others attempted to murder Katureebe Amos by pouring acid on his face. PW1 Ssali Geoffrey testified that the 1st appellant (Baryayesiima Don Kizito) telephoned him and arranged for him to attack the victim, whom the 1st appellant identified as causing them problems. The 2nd appellant (Mbaine Emmanuel) provided transport to the scene. PW1 poured acid on the victim's face at approximately 9pm. The victim corroborated this, stating he heard someone call him 'Councillor Amos' and immediately felt liquid poured on his face. Telephone data evidence showed the 1st appellant was in constant communication with both PW1 and the 2nd appellant around the time of the offence. The appellants raised a defence of alibi, claiming they were elsewhere at the time. The Chief Magistrate's Court convicted them of attempted murder and sentenced them to 14 years imprisonment on 25 February 2019, after they had spent one year and one month on remand.

Issues

  1. Whether the trial Chief Magistrate erred in evaluating the evidence by considering only prosecution evidence in isolation of the defence evidence.
  2. Whether the trial Chief Magistrate erred in concluding that contradictions in the prosecution case did not go to the root of the case.
  3. Whether the trial Chief Magistrate erred in failing to properly consider the appellants' defence of alibi.
  4. Whether the sentence imposed was manifestly harsh and excessive.

Orders

  • Appeal against conviction dismissed.
  • Appeal on sentence allowed.
  • Sentence reduced from 14 years to 12 years and 11 months imprisonment.
  • Remand period of 1 year and 1 month deducted from sentence.
  • Appellants to serve 12 years and 11 months from 25 February 2019.

Rules and key headnotes

Attempted Murder — Ingredients of the Offence
To prove attempted murder under section 187 of the Penal Code Act, the prosecution must establish: (1) a substantial or direct act done towards killing another person; (2) done with the intention of killing the victim; and (3) the accused participated in commission of the act.
Telephone Data Evidence — Placing Accused at Scene of Crime
Telephone call data evidence showing communication between co-accused and placing them in the vicinity of the crime scene at the material time is sufficient to prove participation in the offence and to disprove a defence of alibi.
Defence of Alibi — Burden of Proof
An accused person has no duty to prove their defence of alibi; the burden remains on the prosecution to destroy the alibi by proving the accused's presence and participation at the scene of crime.
Sentencing — Deduction of Remand Period
When sentencing, the period spent on remand must be arithmetically deducted from the sentence imposed. Failure to do so constitutes an error justifying appellate interference with the sentence.
Appellate Interference with Sentence — Principles
An appellate court will not interfere with a sentence imposed by a trial court unless the sentence is manifestly excessive or so low as to amount to a miscarriage of justice, or where the trial court ignored an important matter or circumstance which ought to have been considered, or where the sentence is wrong in principle.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (7)

  • Bogere Moses v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1997)
  • Kamya Abdullah and 4 Others v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 24 of 2015)
  • Rwabugande Moses v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 2014)
  • Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
  • Uganda v Labeja John and 3 Others (High Court Criminal Appeal No. 11 of 2018)
  • Kiwalabye v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 143 of 2001)
  • Rwabugande Moses v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 2014)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Baryayesiima Don Kizito and Another v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 7 of 2019) [2025] UGHC 1083 (6 October 2025)
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.