Wakilii

Marere & 6 Ors v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 220 of 2017)

Court of Appeal · [2019] UGCA 174 · 2019 Appeal Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal appeal from High Court conviction and sentence for murder
Decision
Convictions for murder upheld; sentences reduced to 18 years for the 1st appellant and 16 years each for the 2nd to 7th appellants

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 2 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 2 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 all seven appellants' convictions for murder. It held that the 1st appellant, who instigated and encouraged a mob to burn the deceased in his house knowing he was inside, was a participant under the doctrine of common intention (Penal Code Act s.20) despite not physically taking part, and that an intention to kill could be inferred from her conduct. The court found the contradictions in the prosecution evidence minor and not pointing to deliberate untruthfulness, and dismissed the alibis raised by the 2nd to 7th appellants. However, treating the case as one of mob justice, the court reduced all sentences: the 1st appellant from 29 years 10 months to 18 years, and the 2nd to 7th appellants to 16 years each.

Outcome

Convictions for murder upheld; sentences reduced to 18 years for the 1st appellant and 16 years each for the 2nd to 7th appellants

Facts

On 25 November 2015 at Burora Cell, Kanungu District, a community group was digging a water trench near the deceased's home. The deceased resisted, fearing water would be directed to his compound, and a scuffle ensued in which one Charles Muhimbise was injured and fell unconscious. The deceased locked himself in his house. A mob, falsely believing Charles had been killed, destroyed the windows and doors of the house and set it ablaze with the deceased inside, killing him before police arrived. The 1st appellant, a District Councilor, was alleged to have spread information that the deceased had killed Charles, urged people to avenge his death, encouraged the mob to expedite the destruction before police arrival, and instructed others to add fuel and burn mattresses. The 2nd to 7th appellants were alleged to have physically participated by destroying the house, drawing and pouring fuel, breaking windows, carrying mattresses and firewood, and lighting the fire. The appellants denied participation, several raising alibis.

Issues

  1. Whether the 1st appellant could be convicted of murder under the doctrine of common intention without physical participation, where she instigated and encouraged a mob to burn the deceased.
  2. Whether the 1st appellant's conduct amounted only to the lesser offence of incitement under section 51 of the Penal Code Act.
  3. Whether the contradictions and inconsistencies in the prosecution evidence were material so as to render the convictions unsafe.
  4. Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the participation of the 2nd to 7th appellants in the murder.
  5. Whether the sentences imposed on the appellants were manifestly excessive in a case of mob justice.

Orders

  • Appeal against conviction dismissed.
  • Convictions of all appellants for murder upheld.
  • Appeal against sentence allowed.
  • Sentence of the 1st appellant reduced to 18 years imprisonment.
  • Sentences of the 2nd to 7th appellants reduced to 16 years imprisonment each.

Rules and key headnotes

Criminal Law — Common Intention — Liability of Instigator Without Physical Participation
Where a person forms a common intention with others to prosecute an unlawful purpose, that person is liable for an offence committed in prosecution of that purpose even if she did not physically participate; it is sufficient that she associated herself with the unlawful purpose, for example by instigating and encouraging a mob to burn a victim while knowing he was inside.
Criminal Law — Common Intention — Inference of Intent and No Pre-Arranged Plan Required
An unlawful common intention does not require a pre-arranged plan; it may be inferred from the presence of the accused at the scene, their actions, and any omission to disassociate from the unlawful pursuit, and is established irrespective of whether the accused physically committed the offence.
Criminal Law — Murder — Inference of Malice Aforethought
An intention to kill may be inferred where the accused procures and encourages others to burn a house knowing the victim is locked inside, such that the accused appreciates that death is virtually certain to result barring some unforeseen intervention.
Evidence — Contradictions and Inconsistencies — Materiality Test
Minor inconsistencies in evidence do not result in its rejection unless they point to deliberate untruthfulness; differences in the accounts of witnesses who observed events at different times and from different positions during a chaotic incident do not necessarily undermine credibility.
Evidence — Police Statements — Use in Assessing Credibility
Police statements are not admissible as substantive evidence as they are not tested in cross-examination; they are relevant only where they contradict the evidence given in court, and the purpose of such comparison is to verify any deliberate untruthfulness.
Criminal Law — Sentencing — Mob Justice Distinguished from Premeditated Killing
In sentencing offenders involved in mob justice, the court should not place them on the same plane as those who plan and execute crimes in cold blood, and a sentence that fails to recognise this distinction may be reduced as manifestly excessive.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (18)

  • Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
  • Bogere Moses v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1997)
  • Blakely Sutton Versus DPP [1991] RTR 405, QB
  • Simbwa Paul v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 023 of 2012)
  • Kisegerwa and Another v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 6 of 1978)
  • Uganda v Beino Mugisha and Another (Criminal Session Case No. 64 of 1998)
  • R. Vs Okule & Others [1941] 8 EACA 80
  • R v Nedrick (Ransford Delroy) (1986) 8 Cr. App. R. (S.) 179
  • R v Woollin [1999] 1 A.C. 82
  • Haji Musa Sebirumbi v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1989)
  • Janet Mureeba and Others v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 56 of 2000)
  • Nasolo v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 14 of 2000)
  • Alfred Tajar v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 167 of 1969)
  • Chemonges Fred v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 2001)
  • Kiwalabye Bernard v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 143 of 2001)
  • Kamya Abdullah and 4 Others v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 24 of 2015)
  • Semanda Christopher and Another v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 77 of 2010)
  • Bandebaho Benon v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 319 of 2014)

Cases citing this judgment (2)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Marere & 6 Ors Vs Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 220 of 2017) [2019] UGCA 174 (25 June 2019)
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.