Wakilii

Uganda v Acam Susan (Criminal Session Case 96 of 2011)

High Court · [2013] UGHC 291 · 2013 Conviction Entered AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance criminal trial before the High Court
Decision
Accused convicted of murder

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 convicted the accused of murder under sections 188 and 189 of the Penal Code Act. The prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused strangled her 18-month-old child, Acen Lydia, to death with a piece of cloth on 26 December 2010 after the child's father rejected the child. The court found malice aforethought from the nature of the weapon used and the accused's conduct immediately before and after the killing. The accused's alibi was rejected as incredible and contradicted by her caution statement and the evidence of prosecution witnesses.

Outcome

Accused convicted of murder

Facts

On 26 December 2010, the accused, Acam Susan, removed her 18-month-old daughter, Acen Lydia, from the custody of the child's grandfather without permission. The child had been living with the grandparents and was sickly. The accused took the child to the child's father, Ogwal Sam, who refused to receive her. The child's body was discovered on 29 December 2010 in Otuke Town Council with a kitenge cloth tightly tied around her neck. Post-mortem examination revealed fracture of cervical vertebrae, destroyed trachea, and multiple bruises. The doctor concluded death was caused by acute air shortage (asphyxia) due to severe strangulation. The accused disappeared after the child's death and did not attend the burial. She was arrested on 26 January 2011. In her caution statement, she admitted to strangling the child and dumping the body. In her defence, she claimed to have left the child with the father and denied participation in the killing.

Issues

  1. Whether the fact of death was proved beyond reasonable doubt.
  2. Whether the death of the deceased was unlawfully caused.
  3. Whether the death was caused with malice aforethought.
  4. Whether it was the accused person who caused the death.

Orders

  • Accused found guilty of murder contrary to sections 188 and 189 of the Penal Code Act.
  • Accused convicted of murder.

Rules and key headnotes

Murder — Proof of death of a human being — Standard of proof
In murder cases, the fact of death of a human being must be proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution through post-mortem reports, eye witnesses who knew the deceased and saw the body, and circumstantial evidence.
Murder — Malice aforethought — Proof by circumstantial evidence and conduct of the accused
Malice aforethought is a state of mind that must be proved as a fact and can be inferred from the conduct of the accused immediately before and immediately after the assault, the nature of the injury inflicted, and the weapon used.
Murder — Malice aforethought — Knowledge that unlawful conduct will probably cause death
Under section 191(b) of the Penal Code Act, knowledge that the unlawful conduct will probably cause death can be used to prove malice aforethought. The court is not bound to infer malice aforethought by reason only of the result of an accused's actions being a natural or probable consequence of those actions, but should decide whether the accused intended or foresaw that result by inference from all the evidence.
Confessions — Admissibility after trial within a trial — Weight to be attached
Where a caution statement is admitted in evidence after a trial within a trial establishes that it was made voluntarily without undue influence, the court is entitled to rely on its contents. An accused's denial of the voluntariness of the statement, once resolved against them in the trial within a trial, does not diminish the evidential weight of the statement.
Defence of alibi — Burden of proof — Duty to raise alibi at earliest opportunity
When an accused person sets up a defence of alibi, they do not assume the duty to prove it. The onus lies on the prosecution to bring evidence in rebuttal to destroy the alibi and place the accused at the scene of the crime. However, an alibi ought to be put forward at the earliest possible time to give the prosecution the chance to adduce evidence to test it.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (18)

  • Woolmington v DPP [1942] AC 462
  • Okale v Uganda [1965] EA 55
  • Uganda v Kakooza (Criminal Session Case No. 69 of 1991)
  • Uganda v William Otim [1970] HCB 286
  • Uganda v Wilbert Sekandi & Another [1972] HCB 109
  • Uganda v Sebastian Otii [1994-95]
  • Uganda v Okello [1992-93] HCB 68
  • George Kanalusasi v Uganda (Court of Appeal No. 10 of 1988)
  • Uganda v Sebunzi & Others [1991]
  • Bogere v Uganda and Another (Court of Appeal No. 1 of 1997)
  • Francis Sekitoleko v Uganda MB 68/69
  • Ausi v Uganda MB 113/68
  • Muhamad Mukasa v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 27 of 1995)
  • Leonard Amiseth v R [1969] EA 206
  • Sentale v Uganda [1968] EA 365
  • Basatenda Peter v Uganda (Court of Appeal No. 10 of 2006)
  • Yusuf Kyobe Semalego v Uganda MB 3/67
  • Uganda v Osherura & An/r. HCO-114-2010

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Uganda v Acam Susan (Criminal Session Case 96 of 2011) [2013] UGHC 291 (6 November 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.