Wakilii

Uganda v. Asama Julius And 2 Others (Crim. Case No. 57 of 2009)

High Court · [2010] UGHC 99 · 2010 Conviction Entered AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance criminal prosecution before High Court with trial by assessors for murder
Decision
All three accused convicted of murder and sentenced to 28 years imprisonment each

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 all three accused of murder based on circumstantial evidence establishing that they had a common intention to kill the deceased over a land dispute. The accused threatened the deceased and the land purchaser before the death, falsely claimed the deceased died of poison, visited the purchaser at night to confess and offer a bribe to prevent post-mortem examination, and gave false alibis. Each was sentenced to 28 years imprisonment.

Outcome

All three accused convicted of murder and sentenced to 28 years imprisonment each

Facts

On the night of 4 April 2009, Egolet Girifasio aged 60 was killed at his home in Pallisa District. The deceased had sold land to PW2, a transaction opposed by the three accused (his relatives) who hoped to inherit the land as he had no biological children. Before the death, the accused threatened PW2 and the deceased, stating they would break the deceased's neck and finish the old man. They sponsored radio announcements warning PW2 he had bought air. The deceased's body was found on 5 April with a fractured clavicle and intrathoracic haemorrhage. That night at 3:00am, the three accused visited PW2 with the farm manager, confessed to killing the deceased, and offered 1.5 million shillings to prevent post-mortem examination. The accused initially told others the deceased died of poison. All three gave false alibis claiming to have been away from the scene.

Issues

  1. Whether a human being was killed.
  2. Whether the killing was unlawful.
  3. Whether each of the accused participated in the killing.
  4. Whether the killing was with malice aforethought.

Orders

  • A.1 Asama Julius is found guilty and convicted of murder contrary to sections 188 and 189 of the Penal Code Act.
  • A.2 Emuron Silver is found guilty and convicted of murder contrary to sections 188 and 189 of the Penal Code Act.
  • A.3 Okweny John is found guilty and convicted of murder contrary to sections 188 and 189 of the Penal Code Act.
  • A.1 Asama Julius is sentenced to 28 years imprisonment.
  • A.2 Emuron Silver is sentenced to 28 years imprisonment.
  • A.3 Okweny John is sentenced to 28 years imprisonment.
  • Right of appeal explained.

Rules and key headnotes

Murder — Elements — Proof of ingredients beyond reasonable doubt
In a murder prosecution, the State must prove beyond reasonable doubt that a human being was killed, the killing was unlawful, the accused participated in the killing, and the killing was with malice aforethought.
Circumstantial Evidence — Standard for conviction — Irresistible inference of guilt
To constitute a basis for conviction, circumstantial evidence must create moral certainty about the guilt of an accused and must be incapable of explanation upon any hypothesis other than the guilt of the accused, with all pieces of evidence looked at together for cumulative effect.
Joint Offenders — Common Intention — Section 20 Penal Code Act
Where two or more persons form a common intention to prosecute an unlawful purpose in conjunction with one another, and in the prosecution of that purpose an offence is committed of such a nature that its commission was a probable consequence of the prosecution of that purpose, each of them is deemed to have committed the offence.
Defence of Alibi — Burden of disproof — Assessment
An accused person has no duty to prove an alibi defence; once raised, the duty shifts to the prosecution to adduce evidence to disprove it.
Malice Aforethought — Inference from conduct and injuries — Section 191 Penal Code Act
Malice aforethought may be inferred from the nature of injuries inflicted on a victim and from prior threats and conduct showing intention to cause death or knowledge that the act will probably cause death.
Confessions and Admissions — Extra-judicial confessions to witnesses
Statements made by accused persons to prosecution witnesses confessing to having killed the deceased and seeking to conceal the crime constitute admissible circumstantial evidence pointing to guilt.
Sentencing — Murder — Discretion after abolition of mandatory death penalty
In sentencing for murder where death is no longer mandatory, the court considers factors including that the accused are first offenders but also the savage and premeditated nature of the killing and lack of mitigating circumstances.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (8)

  • Miller v Minister of Pensions [1947] 2 All ER 372
  • Lubogo v Uganda [1967] EA 440
  • Gusambizi s/o Wesonga v R [1948] 15 EACA 65
  • Mureeba Janet and 2 Others v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 13 of 2003)
  • Andrea Obonyo v R [1962] EA 542
  • Simon Musoke v R [1958] EA 715
  • Teper v R [1952] AC 480
  • Charles Lwamunda v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 6 of 1993)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Uganda Vs. Asama Julius And 2 Others (Crim. Case No. 57 of 2009) [2010] UGHC 99 (25 May 2010)
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.