Wakilii

Uganda v Bweyale and Another (Criminal Session Case 43 of 89)

High Court · [1990] UGHC 25 · 1990 Acquitted on Murder and Robbery; Convicted of Receiving Stolen Property AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance criminal trial in the High Court on indictment for murder and robbery
Decision
Accused acquitted of murder and robbery; convicted of receiving stolen property and sentenced to 4 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 court acquitted the accused of murder and robbery on the basis that the prosecution failed to exclude the possibility that they were mere receivers of stolen property rather than members of the raiding gang. The bicycles found in the accused's possession 21 days after the theft were not recently stolen within the meaning of the doctrine of recent possession. However, under s.90 of the Trial on Indictment Decree read with s.150(a) of the Magistrates Courts Act, the court convicted the accused of receiving stolen property knowing or having reason to believe it was stolen, as evidenced by the bicycles being hidden in a ditch covered with banana fibres.

Outcome

Accused acquitted of murder and robbery; convicted of receiving stolen property and sentenced to 4 years imprisonment each

Facts

On 3 February 1984 at around 9:00 p.m., a gang of armed men invaded Bugoye Trading Centre in Kasese District. They fired shots, arrested and tied up several people including PW5 and his girlfriend, and raided shops. Zabuloni Karwani, a shopkeeper, was shot dead in front of his shop with a bullet wound to the chest. The gang stole goods from Lazaro Bwambale's shop including a bicycle (frame No. 253124) and robbed Patrick Wamara of his bicycle (frame No. 162177) and cash. On 23 February 1984, a second robbery occurred at Rwankingi village targeting PW4's shop. A2 (Nyansio Ruhweza) was arrested by villagers after the second incident. Under interrogation, A2 informed police that the gang leader was A1 (Leo Bweyale) and directed them to his location at Rwimi market. A1 was arrested and led police and PW4 to a ditch 10 metres from his home where two bicycles covered with banana leaves were recovered. PW3 and PW5 identified these as their stolen bicycles. Both accused claimed they were tortured at various military depots, which medical evidence corroborated.

Issues

  1. Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused murdered Zabuloni Karwani on 3 February 1984.
  2. Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed robbery of bicycles and shop goods from Lazaro Bwambale and Patrick Wamara on the same date.
  3. Whether the possession of stolen bicycles by the accused 21 days after the theft was sufficiently recent to invoke the doctrine of recent possession.
  4. Whether the accused were members of the gang that committed the murder and robberies or were merely receivers of stolen property.
  5. Whether information obtained from the accused following torture was admissible under the Evidence Amendment Decree.

Orders

  • Accused acquitted on all three counts of murder and robbery.
  • Accused convicted of receiving stolen property contrary to s.298(1) of the Penal Code.
  • Each accused sentenced to 4 years imprisonment.
  • Exhibit bicycle to be returned to the owner.

Rules and key headnotes

Doctrine of Recent Possession — Stolen Property — Period of 21 Days Not Sufficiently Recent
Where stolen property is found in the possession of an accused person 21 days after the theft, and the property consists of bicycles which are readily identifiable articles of value, such possession is not sufficiently recent to justify an inference that the accused was the thief without excluding the possibility that the accused was a mere receiver of stolen property.
Receiving Stolen Property — Alternative Conviction under s.90 Trial on Indictment Decree
Where a person is indicted for robbery and it is proved that he received or retained the stolen thing knowing or having reason to believe it to have been stolen, he may be convicted of receiving stolen property under s.90 of the Trial on Indictment Decree read with s.150(a) of the Magistrates Courts Act, notwithstanding that he was not originally charged with receiving.
Admissibility — Information Leading to Discovery — s.29A Evidence Amendment Decree
Information received from a person accused of an offence that leads to the discovery of fact is admissible under s.29A of the Evidence Amendment Decree whether such information amounts to a confession or not and whether or not it was obtained through torture, provided it leads to the discovery of a material fact.
Circumstantial Evidence — Burden on Prosecution to Exclude Alternative Hypotheses
To justify an inference that a person has committed an offence from the fact that he possessed certain stolen articles, the theft must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, and if the finding depends on the presumption arising from recent possession, the inference is not justified unless the prosecution has excluded the possibility that the accused was a mere receiver of the stolen property.
Joint Possession — Common Intention under s.22 Penal Code
Where information given by one accused person leads to the recovery of stolen property from the home of a co-accused, both accused persons may be found to be in joint possession of the stolen property by application of s.22 of the Penal Code on common intention, such that they are equally culpable for possession.

Legislation cited (14)

Cases cited (8)

  • Woolmington v DPP [1935] AC 62
  • Tubere s/o Ochan v R (1965) 2 AECA 63
  • James Semwogerere and Another v Uganda (1979) HCB 71
  • Andrea Obongo v R [1962] 542
  • Kantilal Jirraj and Another v R (1941) FA 6
  • Director of Public Prosecutions v Reiser [1958] 3 All ER 662
  • Uganda v Bempala Lukasa (1975) HCB 211
  • Oponya v Uganda [1967] EA 752

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Uganda v Bweyale and Another (Criminal Session Case 43 of 89) [1990] UGHC 25 (10 August 1990)
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.