Wakilii

Uganda v Bulira & Anor (HC CS No. 202 of 2009)

High Court · [2012] UGHC 31 · 2012 Conviction Entered 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
Both accused convicted of murder and sentenced to determinate imprisonment terms

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 both accused of murder. The prosecution proved death, unlawful causation, and malice aforethought. Based on circumstantial evidence including the murder weapon traced to the first accused's vehicle, phone calls from the second accused to the first accused immediately before the murder, and the romantic relationship between the accused persons, the court found they jointly planned the murder. The first accused received fifty years' imprisonment; the second accused received twenty-five years.

Outcome

Both accused convicted of murder and sentenced to determinate imprisonment terms

Facts

Winkle Wakaritundu and his wife Christine Karitundu jointly owned Texas Club in Nsambya, Kampala. Christiano Bulira, a Congolese mineral trader, became a regular customer and close friend of the couple. On 15 March 2008 at approximately 1:00 a.m., the deceased and his wife left the club and drove home. Upon arrival, the deceased was attacked as he exited his vehicle and suffered deep head wounds and a fractured skull. He was pronounced dead at Nsambya Hospital approximately half an hour after arrival. The post-mortem revealed the cause of death was haemorrhagic shock due to excessive bleeding. The prosecution alleged that Bulira and Karitundu had become romantically involved and conspired to eliminate the deceased. A sharpened piece of wood matching timber from Texas Club was found at the scene with the deceased's blood. Witnesses testified the piece had been shaped at the club on Bulira's driver's instructions and placed in Bulira's vehicle. Phone records showed Karitundu called Bulira twice shortly before leaving the club. Both accused were arrested and charged with murder.

Issues

  1. Whether the death of Winkle Wakaritundu was proved.
  2. Whether the death was unlawfully caused.
  3. Whether the death was caused with malice aforethought.
  4. Whether the two accused persons caused the death of the deceased on the basis of circumstantial evidence.

Orders

  • Christiano Bulira (A1) convicted of murder contrary to s.188 and 189 of the Penal Code Act.
  • Christine Karitundu (A2) convicted of murder contrary to s.188 and 189 of the Penal Code Act.
  • Christiano Bulira sentenced to fifty years' imprisonment.
  • Christine Karitundu sentenced to twenty-five years' imprisonment.
  • Time spent on remand (four years) to be taken into consideration.
  • Christiano Bulira to be deported to the Democratic Republic of Congo on completion of his sentence.
  • Right of appeal against conviction and sentence explained to each convict.

Rules and key headnotes

Murder — Elements of the offence — Proof beyond reasonable doubt
To constitute the offence of murder, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt: (1) that the person alleged to have been killed is dead; (2) that the death was unlawfully caused; (3) that there was malice aforethought; and (4) that it is the accused who caused the death.
Burden of Proof — Standard of proof — Resolution of doubt in favour of accused
The burden to prove a criminal case against an accused lies throughout on the prosecution and does not shift. The prosecution must prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and any doubt must be resolved in favour of the accused. An accused person should not be convicted on the weakness of his or her defence but rather on the strength of the prosecution case.
Alibi — Burden of proof — Prosecution duty to disprove
The burden of proving an alibi does not lie on the accused. When an accused puts up an alibi, the burden passes to the prosecution to adduce evidence to destroy the alibi by placing the accused at the scene of the crime.
Circumstantial Evidence — Standard for conviction — Exclusion of other reasonable hypotheses
In a case depending exclusively on circumstantial evidence, the court must find, before deciding upon a conviction, 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. No inference of guilt should be drawn unless there are no other co-existing circumstances which would weaken or destroy that inference.
Murder — Malice aforethought — Inference from circumstances
Malice aforethought may be proved by direct evidence or may be inferred from evidence of circumstances indicating knowledge that the conduct of an accused would probably cause death. Courts may infer such mental disposition from the circumstances surrounding the homicide, including the part of the body on which injuries were inflicted.
Sentencing — Murder — Discretion to impose death penalty — Determinate sentences
Following Attorney General v Susan Kigula, the court has discretion whether to sentence a person convicted of murder to death or to impose a determinate sentence. The court may impose a determinate prison term taking into account aggravating and mitigating factors, the seriousness of the offence, and time already spent on remand.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (18)

  • Sekitoleko v Uganda (1967 EA 531)
  • Okethi Okale & others v R (1965 EA 585)
  • Uganda v Oloya (1977 HCB 4)
  • Uganda v DC Ojok (1992 HCB 54)
  • Seuri v R (1972 EA 486)
  • Damodar Jinabhai & Co Ltd & Anor v Eustace Sisal Estates Ltd (1967 EA 162)
  • Uganda v Sebyala (1969 EA 204)
  • Raphael v Republic (1973 EA 473)
  • Bogere v Uganda (1998 KLR)
  • Kassim Musa Obura and Anor (1981 HCB 9)
  • Gusambizi s/o Wesonga v R (1948 EACA 65)
  • Akol Patrick & others v Uganda (2006 HCB 4)
  • R v Tubere (1946 (12) EACA 63)
  • Uganda v John Ailing ((1992-93) HCB 80)
  • Simon Musoke v R (1958 EA 775)
  • Teper v R ((2) 1952 AC 480)
  • Mureeba Janet and others v Uganda ((2006) HCB 1)
  • Attorney General v Susan Kigula and others (Constitution Appeal No. 03 of 2006)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Uganda v Bulira & Anor (HC CS No. 202 of 2009) [2012] UGHC 31 (23 February 2012)
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.