Wakilii

Uganda v Baguma and 2 Others (HCT-01-CR-SC 174 of 2019)

High Court · [2023] UGHC 457 · 2023 Conviction Upheld AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance criminal trial for murder in the High Court
Decision
Two accused convicted of murder and sentenced to imprisonment; third accused acquitted at close of prosecution case

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 two accused persons of murder based on circumstantial evidence comprising motive, death threats made to the deceased two days before his killing, and the accused persons' disappearance from their homes immediately after the death. The court held that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused strangled the deceased to death with malice aforethought, acting on a common intention to eliminate the deceased and thereby cause the dismissal of an attempted murder case in which the accused's relatives were imprisoned.

Outcome

Two accused convicted of murder and sentenced to imprisonment; third accused acquitted at close of prosecution case

Facts

The deceased and the father of A2 were half-brothers. A2, her mother, and siblings had a history of assaulting A2's father, and the deceased would intervene to help him. On 9 October 2018, A2's mother and siblings attacked the deceased and injured his private parts, resulting in their prosecution and conviction for attempted murder with a seven-year sentence. While the criminal case was ongoing, A1 and A2 repeatedly sought bail for the imprisoned relatives, which was denied. On 11 and 12 March 2019, A1 and A2 threatened the deceased that if he did not cause the release of the prisoners, he would not live to attend the next court hearing on 20 March 2019. On the night of 13 March 2019, the deceased was found dead in a locked shop in the market, having been strangled. A1 and A2 disappeared from their homes immediately after the death and were arrested approximately two weeks later.

Issues

  1. Whether the death of a human being occurred.
  2. Whether the death was caused unlawfully.
  3. Whether the death was caused with malice aforethought.
  4. Whether the accused participated in the commission of the crime.

Orders

  • A1 Baguma David convicted of murder contrary to sections 188 and 189 of the Penal Code Act.
  • A2 Kunihira Mwesige Annet convicted of murder contrary to sections 188 and 189 of the Penal Code Act.
  • A3 Chance Tadeo acquitted and discharged at the close of the prosecution case.
  • Each of A1 and A2 sentenced to 20 years' imprisonment.
  • Period spent on remand (4 years, 5 months, and 5 days) deducted from sentence.
  • Each convict to serve 14 years, 6 months, and 25 days' imprisonment with effect from 7 September 2023.

Rules and key headnotes

Murder — Burden and Standard of Proof — Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt
In a criminal trial for murder, the burden of proof rests on the prosecution throughout and never shifts to the accused unless a specific statutory provision provides otherwise. The standard of proof is proof beyond reasonable doubt, which does not mean proof beyond a shadow of doubt but requires that having considered all the evidence, there is no possibility that the accused is innocent.
Evaluation of Evidence — Consideration of Prosecution and Defence Evidence Together
Evidence must be evaluated as a whole. The court must consider evidence of both the prosecution and the defence relating to each ingredient of the offence before reaching a conclusion. The prosecution evidence should not be considered in isolation from the evidence presented on behalf of the accused. The proper approach is to consider the strengths and weaknesses of each side, weigh the evidence as a whole, apply the burden of proof as always resting upon the prosecution, and decide whether the defence has raised a reasonable doubt.
Murder — Malice Aforethought — Inference from Injury to Vulnerable Body Part
Malice aforethought may be inferred from the circumstances of the killing, including the weapon used, the part of the body targeted, the degree of injury, and the conduct of the accused before and after the act. Where a vulnerable part of the body such as the neck is targeted and the injury causes vital organs to cease functioning, the court may infer that the perpetrator intended to cause death or knew that their acts would probably cause death.
Hearsay — Statements of Deceased Person — Relevance Under Evidence Act Section 30
Under section 30 of the Evidence Act, statements made by a deceased person as to the cause of their death or as to any of the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in their death are relevant facts in cases where the cause of that person's death comes into question. The statements are relevant whether the deceased was or was not under expectation of death at the time they were made.
Threats — Admissibility and Probative Value in Murder Cases
Evidence of a prior threat or of an announced intention to kill is always admissible evidence against a person accused of murder. Its probative value varies greatly depending on the manner in which the threat is uttered, whether it is spoken bitterly or impulsively in sudden anger or jokingly, the reason for the threat if given, and the length of time between the threat and the killing. Where death threats are repeated and very close in proximity to the event of death, it shows that in all human probability the accused were party to the commission of the offence.
Circumstantial Evidence — Conduct After Commission of Offence — Flight and Disappearance
Under section 7 of the Evidence Act, the conduct of a person accused of an offence is relevant if that conduct influences or is influenced by any fact in issue or relevant fact. The disappearance of an accused person from the area of a crime soon after the incident may provide corroboration to other evidence that they have committed the offence, as such sudden disappearance from the area is incompatible with innocent conduct. Where accused persons disappear from their homes for a substantial period immediately following a death in respect of which they had made death threats to the deceased, such conduct tends to connect them to the commission of the crime.
Common Intention — Section 20 Penal Code Act — Joint Liability
Under section 20 of the Penal Code Act, when 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. Common intention does not imply a pre-arranged plan and may be inferred from the presence of the accused persons, their actions, and the omission of any of them to disassociate themselves from the unlawful conduct.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (26)

  • Woolmington v DPP [1935] AC 462
  • Okethi Okale & Ors v Republic [1965] EA 555
  • Miller v Minister of Pensions [1947] 2 All ER 372
  • Abdu Ngobi v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1991)
  • Gusambizi s/o Wesonge v Republic [1948] 15 EACA 65
  • R v Tubere s/o Ochieng [1945] EACA 63
  • Uganda v Barimwezi Simon & 2 Ors (Masaka CSC No. 070 of 2014)
  • Waihi and Anor v Uganda (1968) EA 278
  • Uganda v Owakubariho Paul alias Kaguri (Rukungiri CSC No. 37 of 2002)
  • Bogere Charles v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1998)
  • Uganda v Yowana Baptist Kabandize (1982) HCB 93
  • Remigious Kiwanuka v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 41 of 1995)
  • Twehamye Abdul v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 49 of 1999) [2000] UGCA 7
  • Akbar Hussein Godi v Uganda (Court of Appeal Criminal Appeal No. 62 of 2011)
  • Musana Alex v Uganda (Court of Appeal Criminal Appeal No. 705 of 2015)
  • Simon Musoke v R [1958] EA 715
  • Teper v R [1952] AC 480
  • R v Taylor, Weavover and Danovanu (1928) Cr App R 20
  • Tumuhairwe v Uganda [1967] EA 328
  • R v Tabulayenka s/o Kirya and Others [1943] 10 EACA 5
  • Ninsiima v Uganda (Court of Appeal Criminal Appeal No. 180 of 2010)
  • Atuku Margret Opti v Uganda (Court of Appeal Criminal Appeal No. 123 of 2008)
  • Kajungu Emmanuel v Uganda (Court of Appeal Criminal Appeal No. 625 of 2014)
  • Kisitu Majaidin alias Mpata v Uganda (Court of Appeal Criminal Appeal No. 28 of 2007)
  • Kyaterekera George William v Uganda (Court of Appeal Criminal Appeal No. 113 of 2010)
  • Hon. Godi Akbar v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 2013)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Uganda v Baguma and 2 Others (HCT-01-CR-SC 174 of 2019) [2023] UGHC 457 (7 September 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.