Wakilii

Mugenyi Kiiza v Uganda (HCT-00-CR-SC- 021 OF 2013)

High Court · [2013] UGHCCRD 15 · 2013 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Defence submission of no case to answer following close of prosecution case in murder trial
Decision
Accused ordered to enter defence

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

A prima facie case of murder was established. The prosecution evidence showed the deceased died by strangulation, death was unnatural, strangulation established intention to kill, and witness testimony linked the accused to the killing through an eyewitness account and an alleged admission. The accused was ordered to enter his defence.

Outcome

Accused ordered to enter defence

Facts

On 2 June 2012 at Mugongo Zone A, Kyengera, Wakiso District, the accused and others allegedly caused the death of Hamida Nazziwa by strangulation. The accused pleaded not guilty to murder. The prosecution called two witnesses: the deceased's widower (PW1) and the LC Defence Secretary (PW2). Both testified the deceased died by strangulation. PW2 testified that a witness named Herbert saw the accused with the deceased shortly before her death, and that the accused admitted to PW2 that he killed the deceased in anger. Defence counsel submitted no case to answer, arguing the prosecution had not established the essential ingredients of murder.

Issues

  1. Whether the prosecution established a prima facie case of murder against the accused to warrant putting him to his defence.

Orders

  • A prima facie case has been established against the accused person for the offence of murder contrary to sections 188 and 189 of the Penal Code Act.
  • The accused person shall be put to his defence.

Rules and key headnotes

Criminal Procedure — No Case to Answer — Prima Facie Case
A prima facie case is established when the evidence adduced is such that a reasonable tribunal, properly directing its mind on the law and evidence, would convict the accused if no evidence or explanation was set up by the defence.
Criminal Procedure — Prima Facie Case — Standard of Proof
At the stage of determining whether a prima facie case exists, the standard of proof is not proof beyond reasonable doubt as required of a full criminal trial, but rather such evidence as when taken literally or on its face would establish the essential ingredients of the offence and the accused's participation therein.
Evidence — Prima Facie Case — Quality of Evidence Required
A prima facie case cannot be established by a mere scintilla of evidence or by any amount of worthless, discredited prosecution evidence.
Murder — Essential Ingredients — Intention to Kill
In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the fact of death by strangulation establishes an intention to kill on the part of the attacker.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (2)

  • Rananlal T. Bhatt v R [1957] EA 332
  • Uganda v Mulwo Aramathan (Criminal Case No. 103 of 2008)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Mugenyi Kiiza v Uganda (HCT-00-CR-SC- 021 OF 2013) [2013] UGHCCRD 15 (12 April 2013)
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.