Wakilii

Kizito Jairus Mukasa v Uganda (Miscellaneous Application No. 151 of 2026)

High Court · [2026] UGHCCRD 36 · 2026 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to adduce additional evidence arising from Criminal Appeal No. 115 of 2022
Decision
Leave granted to adduce additional evidence; matter remitted to Magistrate Grade I Court at Luzira to take and certify the evidence; criminal appeal adjourned pending return of certified evidence

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 granted leave to adduce additional evidence consisting of a will naming the applicant as co-executor of an estate. The will was discovered after trial during separate civil proceedings and was found to meet all requirements under Section 41 of the Criminal Procedure Code Act: it was unavailable at trial, relevant to the criminal charges of trespass and intermeddling with estate property, credible, and capable of raising reasonable doubt about the trial court's findings that the applicant had no lawful claim to the estate.

Outcome

Leave granted to adduce additional evidence; matter remitted to Magistrate Grade I Court at Luzira to take and certify the evidence; criminal appeal adjourned pending return of certified evidence

Facts

The Applicant was convicted in Criminal Case No. 61 of 2020 before Nakawa Chief Magistrate's Court at Luzira on charges of criminal trespass and intermeddling with estate property. The complainants, Lwandago Christine and Nanseko Sarah, daughters of the late Nabuguzi Ruth Mulasa, were administrators of the estate and had lodged the criminal complaint. The Applicant appealed the conviction. During the hearing of a separate High Court Civil Suit No. 530 of 2022 in the Family Division in 2024, the Applicant discovered a will dated 20th April 2014 in which the late Nabuguzi Ruth Mulasa nominated him as co-executor of her estate. This will had been unknown to him during the criminal trial. The Applicant sought leave to adduce this will and the witness statement of Tabula Edward, one of its attesting witnesses, as additional evidence in his pending criminal appeal.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicant should be granted leave to adduce additional evidence on appeal, specifically the last testamentary will of the late Nabuguzi Ruth Mulasa dated 20th April 2014 and the witness statement of Tabula Edward dated 11th March 2024.
  2. Whether the evidence sought to be adduced was unavailable at trial, relevant to the issues, and credible within the principles established in Magidu Mudasi v Uganda.

Orders

  • Application allowed.
  • Leave granted to adduce additional evidence, being the last testamentary will of the late Nabuguzi Ruth Mulasa dated 20th April 2014 and the witness statement of Tabula Edward dated 11th March 2024, arising out of Criminal Case No. 61 of 2020.
  • The Magistrate shall take the additional evidence in the Magistrate Grade I Court at Luzira, who shall certify the record of the evidence and forward it to this Court for Criminal Appeal No. 115 of 2022.
  • Criminal Appeal No. 115 of 2022 adjourned pending receipt of the certified evidence and shall be mentioned before this Court for further directions upon its return.

Rules and key headnotes

Criminal Appeals — Additional Evidence — Principles for Granting Leave
An appellate court may grant leave to adduce additional evidence on appeal under Section 41 of the Criminal Procedure Code Act where the evidence was not available at trial, is relevant to the issues, is credible in the sense of being capable of belief, and would have been capable of raising reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury as to the guilt of the appellant if given together with other evidence at trial.
Additional Evidence on Appeal — Unavailability Requirement
Evidence is unavailable at trial within the meaning of the principles for admitting additional evidence on appeal where it was not known to the party at the time of trial and could not, with reasonable diligence, have been discovered before then.
Wills — Effect on Criminal Charges of Intermeddling and Trespass
Where a trial court's conviction for criminal trespass and intermeddling with estate property turns substantially on the absence of a will and the complainants' status as sole administrators, a subsequently discovered will naming the accused as co-executor is directly relevant to the issues on appeal as it bears on the accused's lawful interest in and authority over the estate.
Criminal Appeals — Additional Evidence — Effect on Verdict
Additional evidence meets the threshold for admission on appeal where, had it been before the trial court alongside the other evidence, it would have cast reasonable doubt on findings that go to the heart of the conviction.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (2)

  • Magidu Mudasi v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 1998)
  • Peter Waswa Weraga v Uganda (High Court Criminal Miscellaneous No. 66 of 2015)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kizito Jairus Mukasa v Uganda (Miscellaneous Application No. 151 of 2026) [2026] UGHCCRD 36 (2 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.