Wakilii

Uganda v Akankwasa Edgar and Others (Criminal Case 115 of 2022)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 336 · 2025 Conviction Entered AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance criminal trial for murder before the High Court
Decision
Both 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 court convicted Akankwasa Edgar and Atuhwere Damson of murder. The prosecution proved death, unlawful causation, and malice aforethought beyond reasonable doubt. Akankwasa was the last person seen with the deceased and led police in a detailed reconstruction of the crime scene. Circumstantial evidence, including the last-seen doctrine, reconstruction testimony, recovery of a blood-stained tapline from Atuhwere's home, and established motive linking both accused to the killing, proved their participation. The defence of alibi by both accused was rejected.

Outcome

Both accused convicted of murder

Facts

On 19 September 2021, Akankwasa Edgar (A1) was drinking with Kiconco Aggrey at a bar in Rukiga District. When the deceased became intoxicated around 9:00 PM, A1 offered to take him home and left with the deceased leaning on him. The deceased's body was discovered the following morning at a trading centre with a cut wound to the head and bleeding from the nose and mouth. A1 was arrested and led police in a reconstruction of the crime scene, showing them the bar, the deceased's home where he was struck with a hammer, and the location where the body was placed. A1 stated he had been given the assignment to kill the deceased by Atuhwere Damson (A2), the deceased's son, and Kyomuhendo Allen (A3), the deceased's wife and A2's mother. A blood-stained yellow tapline was recovered from A2's home. A2 and A3 had ongoing disputes with the deceased over family matters and accusations of witchcraft. Both A1 and A2 pleaded not guilty and raised alibis.

Issues

  1. Whether the prosecution proved the death of Kiconco Aggrey beyond reasonable doubt.
  2. Whether the death of Kiconco Aggrey was caused by an unlawful act.
  3. Whether the unlawful act causing death was actuated by malice aforethought.
  4. Whether the accused persons Akankwasa Edgar and Atuhwere Damson participated in causing the death of Kiconco Aggrey.

Orders

  • Akankwasa Edgar found guilty of murder contrary to Sections 188 and 189 of the Penal Code Act and convicted.
  • Atuhwere Damson found guilty of murder contrary to Sections 188 and 189 of the Penal Code Act and convicted.

Rules and key headnotes

Murder — Proof of Death — Post-Mortem Evidence and Witness Testimony
Death of a human being in a murder prosecution may be proved by production of a post-mortem report or by evidence of witnesses who state that they knew the deceased, saw the deceased's body, or attended the burial.
Murder — Malice Aforethought — Inference from Nature and Location of Injury
Malice aforethought may be inferred from the weapon used, the manner of its use, the part of the body targeted, and the conduct of the accused before, during, and after the incident. A cut wound to the scalp, a vulnerable and sensitive part of the body, permits an inference that the assailant intended to cause death.
Circumstantial Evidence — Standard of Proof in Criminal Cases
Where the prosecution case depends solely on circumstantial evidence, the court must find that the inculpatory facts are incompatible with the innocence of the accused and incapable of explanation upon any other reasonable hypothesis than that of guilt. Circumstantial evidence must be treated with caution and narrowly examined because it can be easily fabricated.
Last Seen Doctrine — Duty of Accused to Explain
Under the last-seen doctrine, where the deceased was last seen with the accused, a duty is placed on the accused to give an explanation relating to how the deceased met his or her death. In the absence of a satisfactory explanation, the court is justified in drawing the inference that the accused killed the deceased.
Murder — Motive — Relevance in Establishing Guilt
While motive is immaterial to criminal responsibility for murder, establishing motive is useful because a person in normal faculties would not commit a crime without reason. The existence of a motive may make it more likely that an accused committed the offence and is one of the factors that may be taken into account.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (10)

  • Ssekitoleko v Uganda (1961) EA 531
  • R v Gazambizi s/o Wesonga (1948) EACA 65
  • R v Tubere s/o Ochen (1945) 12 EACA 63
  • Byaruhanga Fodori v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 18 of 2002)
  • Tindigwihura Mbahe v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 9 of 1987)
  • Busingye Paul and Another v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 48 of 2019 and No. 56 of 2019)
  • Moses Jua versus State (2007) LPELR-CA/IL/42/2006
  • Stephen Haruna versus The Attorney General of the Federation (2010) 1 LAW/CA/A/186/C/2009
  • Duke Mabaya Gwaka v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 59 of 2015)
  • John Kyambadde and Another v Uganda (SCCA No. 30 of 2014)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Uganda v Akankwasa Edgar and Others (Criminal Case 115 of 2022) [2025] UGHC 336 (20 January 2025)
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.