Wakilii

Uganda v Celina Aguti (Criminal Case No. 97 of 1988)

High Court · [1991] UGHC 79 · 1991 Conviction Quashed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal revision from Chief Magistrate's Court conviction
Decision
Accused acquitted and ordered released

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

High Court quashed convictions under Witchcraft Act sections 5(1) and 3(1) on revision. For section 5(1), prosecution failed to prove articles found were by common repute used in witchcraft. For section 3(1), evidence showed only suspicion of poisoning, not practising or threatening witchcraft. Court held that where convictions are quashed, resulting sentences fall away. Accused ordered released forthwith.

Outcome

Accused acquitted and ordered released

Facts

Celina Aguti was convicted in the Chief Magistrate's Court on two counts: possession of articles used in practising witchcraft contrary to Witchcraft Act section 5(1), and practising witchcraft contrary to section 3(1). She received 4 months imprisonment for count 1 and 8 months for count 2, to run consecutively, and was ordered to migrate from the area after completing her sentence. A co-accused, Bitokarina, was discharged. The Chief Magistrate sent the file to the High Court for possible revision. The evidence showed suspicion that the accused had poisoned a complainant. Articles were found in the accused's possession after torture, but there was no evidence these were by common repute articles used for witchcraft.

Issues

  1. Whether the conviction under section 5(1) of the Witchcraft Act was supported by evidence that the articles found were by common repute or belief used for practising witchcraft.
  2. Whether the conviction under section 3(1) of the Witchcraft Act was supported by evidence that the accused practised or threatened someone with death by witchcraft or supernatural means.
  3. Whether consecutive sentences were properly ordered for offences arising from the same transaction.

Orders

  • Convictions in both counts quashed.
  • Sentences set aside.
  • Accused to be released forthwith if still in custody unless held on some other lawful ground.

Rules and key headnotes

Witchcraft Act — Possession of Articles — Requirement of Proof by Common Repute
For a conviction under section 5(1) of the Witchcraft Act for possession of articles used in practising witchcraft, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was found in possession of articles which by common repute or belief are used in practising witchcraft as required by section 5(2).
Witchcraft Act — Practising Witchcraft — Elements of Offence
A conviction under section 3(1) of the Witchcraft Act requires evidence beyond reasonable doubt that the accused practised or threatened someone with death by witchcraft or by any other supernatural means; mere suspicion of poisoning does not constitute practising witchcraft.
Standard of Proof — Conviction Unsupported by Evidence
Where convictions are not supported by evidence on record, they are bad in law and must be quashed on revision.
Sentencing — Consecutive Sentences — Same Transaction Rule
Ordinarily, two consecutive sentences should not be ordered for two offences which arise from the same transaction; sentences in such circumstances should run concurrently.

Legislation cited (3)

  • Witchcraft Act s.5(1)
  • Witchcraft Act s.5(2)
  • Witchcraft Act s.3(1)

Cases cited (1)

  • Republic v Matheri (1965) E.A. 777

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Uganda v Celina Aguti (Criminal Case No. 97 of 1988) [1991] UGHC 79 (20 August 1991)
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.