Wakilii

Uganda v Barekye & Anor (Criminal Case No.0028 of 2015)

High Court · [2017] UGHCCRD 14 · 2017 Accused Acquitted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance criminal prosecution for murder
Decision
Both accused persons acquitted and ordered released unless held on other lawful charges

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

Held that the prosecution failed to adduce any evidence linking the accused persons to the murder of the deceased. While the death was unlawful and occurred with malice aforethought, the prosecution presented no evidence of the accused's participation in the killing. Circumstantial evidence based solely on marital disputes and alleged threats, without direct evidence connecting the accused to the crime scene or the victim at the material time, was insufficient for conviction. Both accused acquitted.

Outcome

Both accused persons acquitted and ordered released unless held on other lawful charges

Facts

On 3 June 2014, Ampeire Mercy left home to attend Kateme Health Centre and did not return. Six days later, her body was discovered at Rwakabengo mortuary. Post-mortem examination revealed fatal brain damage from deep head and neck injuries and strangulation, with multiple wounds and lacerations. The first accused, Barekye Silver, was the deceased's estranged husband. They had separated seven years earlier following marital disputes over his remarriage and matrimonial property. The deceased had obtained a favourable court order in 2011 requiring the accused to relocate his new partner and pay costs, which remained unexecuted at the time of her death. Witnesses testified that the accused had threatened the deceased after losing the court case. The second accused, Ahimbisibwe Vincent, had been in phone contact with the deceased on the day she disappeared. A witness statement referred to an unidentified woman, Busingye Annet, who allegedly saw the deceased with two unknown men on 3 June 2014, but this witness was not called to testify.

Issues

  1. Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused persons murdered Ampeire Mercy.
  2. Whether the prosecution adduced sufficient evidence to put the second accused to his defence.
  3. Whether the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to establish the participation of the first accused in the murder.

Orders

  • The first accused, Barekye Silver, found not guilty of murder and acquitted.
  • The second accused, Ahimbisibwe Vincent, found not guilty of murder and acquitted at the close of the prosecution case.
  • Accused to be released unless held on any other lawful charge.

Rules and key headnotes

Criminal Law & Procedure — Murder — Burden of Proof — Prosecution Duty to Prove Beyond Reasonable Doubt
The prosecution bears the duty to prove the offence of murder beyond reasonable doubt, and a court cannot convict an accused person on the weakness of the defence but must do so on the strength of the prosecution evidence, premised on the presumption that the accused is innocent until proven guilty.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Murder — Elements of the Offence — Death, Unlawfulness, Malice Aforethought, Participation
To secure a conviction for murder, the prosecution must prove that there was a death of a human being, that the death was unlawful, and that it was caused with malice aforethought by the accused person either directly or indirectly.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Murder — Malice Aforethought — Inference from Circumstances
Malice aforethought in murder cases may be derived from the circumstances in which the death occurred, including the nature of the weapon used, the multiplicity of attacks, the parts of the body attacked, and the conduct of the assailant before and after the offence.
Evidence — Circumstantial Evidence — Standard for Conviction — Inculpatory Facts Must Exclude Innocence
For a court to convict on circumstantial evidence, the inculpatory facts must be inconsistent with the innocence of the accused and incapable of any reasonable hypothesis other than the guilt of the accused.
Evidence — Sufficiency of Evidence — Suspicion Insufficient Without Proof of Participation
Suspicions, however strong, must be backed by evidence pointing to the participation of the accused in the commission of the offence to secure a conviction, and the mere existence of marital disputes and alleged threats without evidence linking the accused to the crime is insufficient.

Legislation cited (2)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Uganda v Barekye & Anor (Criminal Case No.0028 of 2015) [2017] UGHCCRD 14 (3 February 2017)
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.