Wakilii

Uganda v Adakun and Others (HCT-00-CR-SC 195 of 2019)

High Court · [2023] UGHCCRD 83 · 2023 Acquittal Entered AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance criminal trial for murder
Decision
All three accused persons acquitted and discharged

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 acquitted all three accused persons charged with murder. The prosecution proved death and that it was an unlawful homicide with malice aforethought, but failed to prove participation beyond reasonable doubt. The first accused's possession of the deceased's phone was explained as having been picked up, and this explanation was not rebutted. Alleged admissions to police were inadmissible as they were not properly documented and were obtained in circumstances suggesting inducement. No independent evidence linked the second and third accused to the crime.

Outcome

All three accused persons acquitted and discharged

Facts

On 2 September 2018, Oponya Hope Mwa, a university student, was sent by his mother to collect a car. His phone went dead and he was reported missing. That night, the first accused allegedly heard a scream near Northern bypass and, with a friend, apprehended the deceased who was running. They allegedly assaulted him, joined by the second and third accused. The deceased died from the assault and his body was taken to KCC Mortuary. The mother identified the body at Mulago mortuary. The first accused was found using the deceased's phone and was arrested. He led police to the arrest of the second and third accused. Post-mortem revealed head injuries, skull fractures, and blunt force trauma as cause of death.

Issues

  1. Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased died.
  2. Whether the death was caused unlawfully.
  3. Whether the killing was done with malice aforethought.
  4. Whether the accused persons participated in the commission of the murder.

Orders

  • Adakun Zadoki, Munyalo Peter a.k.a Mulalo and Mutenza Nassar found not guilty of the offence of Murder contrary to sections 188 and 189 of the Penal Code Act.
  • All three accused persons acquitted and discharged.

Rules and key headnotes

Criminal Law & Procedure — Burden and Standard of Proof — Prosecution Must Prove Case Beyond Reasonable Doubt
In a criminal case, the burden of proof rests with the prosecution and never shifts, and the standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Murder — Malice Aforethought — Inference from Circumstances
Malice aforethought can be inferred from the type of weapon used, the nature of the injuries inflicted, the part of the body affected or targeted, and the conduct of the perpetrator before and after the attack.
Evidence — Recent Possession of Stolen Property — Doctrine and Rebuttal
Evidence of recent possession of stolen property raises a strong presumption of participation in the stealing, but where the accused offers a plausible explanation for possession which the prosecution fails to rebut, the presumption is displaced and reasonable doubt is established.
Evidence — Circumstantial Evidence — Standard for Conviction
For circumstantial evidence to sustain a conviction, it must point irresistibly to the guilt of the accused and be incompatible with innocence and incapable of explanation upon any other reasonable hypothesis than that of guilt.
Evidence — Confessions and Admissions to Police — Admissibility Requirements
Statements to police officers, particularly admissions, must be received by officers of the rank of Assistant Inspector of Police and above, and there must be proof that the statement was not extracted by violence, force, threat, inducement or promise. Alleged admissions not properly documented or obtained in circumstances suggesting inducement are inadmissible.
Evidence — Conduct of Accused — Relevance to Guilt
The conduct of an accused person before or after the offence may give insight into whether he or she participated in the crime, but such conduct must be examined in context and not in isolation from the rest of the evidence on record.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (11)

  • Okethi Okale v R (1965) EA 555
  • Kamesere Moses v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 8 of 1997)
  • Gusambizi s/o Wesonga [1948] 15 EACA 63
  • Amis Katalikawe and 2 Others v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 1994)
  • Bogere Moses and Another v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1997)
  • Magidu Musisi v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 1998)
  • Andrea Obonyo v R (1962) EA 542
  • Mureeba Janet and Others (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 13 of 2003)
  • R v Kipkering Arap Koske and Another (1949) 16 EACA 135
  • Simon Musoke v R (1958) EA 715
  • Rex v Tubere s/o Ochen (1945) 12 EACA 63

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Uganda v Adakun and Others (HCT-00-CR-SC 195 of 2019) [2023] UGHCCRD 83 (28 August 2023)
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.