Wakilii

Uganda v Dusabe Michael alias Boy and Nsabimana Richard alias Kadogo (Criminal Session No. 0033 of 2023)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 342 · 2025 Conviction Entered AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance criminal trial for murder before High Court with assessors
Decision
Both accused convicted of murder and remanded pending sentencing

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 convicted both accused of murder. The prosecution proved death, unlawful causation, and malice aforethought beyond reasonable doubt. The dying declaration written by the deceased naming his attackers was found reliable and corroborated by circumstances including moonlight aiding identification, the proximity and duration of the attack, prior acquaintance between parties, and the flight of a co-accused. The alibi defences were rejected as fabricated.

Outcome

Both accused convicted of murder and remanded pending sentencing

Facts

On 16 June 2022 at approximately 10:00 PM in Gasovu village, Kisoro District, Kwizera Jerome, a deaf and mute man, was found by his mother and sister lying in a pool of blood with multiple deep cut wounds to his head and neck. He was rushed to Mutolere Hospital. While hospitalised on 17 June 2022, he requested pen and paper and wrote down the names of three persons who attacked him: Kadogo Rutwe, Kidemu Rutwe, and Boy. This document was dated 16 June 2022. Kwizera Jerome's condition worsened and he died on 23 June 2022. Post-mortem examination confirmed death resulted from deep cut wounds to the scalp. Evidence showed that the second accused (Kadogo) and the deceased were both present at a bar shortly before the attack. When the names became public, Kidemu fled and remained at large. Both accused raised alibi defences claiming to have been home by 8:00 PM.

Issues

  1. Whether the death of Kwizera Jerome was proved.
  2. Whether the death was caused by an unlawful act.
  3. Whether the unlawful act was actuated by malice aforethought.
  4. Whether the two accused persons participated in causing the unlawful death.
  5. Whether the dying declaration in Exhibit P5 was reliable and admissible.
  6. Whether the identification of the accused persons as the assailants was credible despite the attack occurring at night.
  7. Whether the alibi defence raised by both accused persons was credible.

Orders

  • Both accused found guilty of the offence of murder contrary to Sections 188 and 189 of the Penal Code Act.
  • Both accused convicted of murder.

Rules and key headnotes

Evidence — Dying Declarations — Admissibility and Weight — Section 30 Evidence Act
A dying declaration is admissible as to the cause of death or circumstances of the transaction which resulted in death regardless of whether the declarant was under expectation of death. Such evidence must be received with caution because it is not subject to cross-examination, but a court may convict on uncorroborated dying declaration evidence if circumstances show the deceased was not mistaken in identification.
Evidence — Identification — Night Attacks — Moonlight as Aid to Identification
Light given off by moonlight can aid in identification during night attacks. Where an attack involves close proximity between assailant and victim over an extended duration, involves multiple blows requiring sustained contact, occurs under moonlight conditions, and the parties are previously acquainted neighbours, identification may be reliable despite the attack occurring at night.
Criminal Law — Malice Aforethought — Inference from Weapon, Target, and Manner of Attack
Malice aforethought may be inferred from the weapon used, the part of the body targeted, the manner in which the weapon was used, and the conduct of the accused before, during and after the incident. Where multiple deep cuts are inflicted to the head, a sensitive and vulnerable part of the body, the intention to cause death may be inferred.
Criminal Law — Defences — Alibi — Burden of Proof
An accused person who sets up an alibi as a defence does not assume any burden to prove it. It is the duty of the prosecution to disprove the alibi by adducing evidence that places the accused at the scene of crime at the material time.
Evidence — Corroboration of Dying Declarations — Flight of Co-Accused as Corroboration
The flight and disappearance of a co-accused immediately after a dying declaration naming him becomes public may constitute corroborative evidence pointing to guilt and corroborating the dying declaration.
Evidence — Credibility — Lies Told by Accused — Effect on Credibility
Where an accused person's testimony as to his whereabouts at the material time is contradicted by independent and uncontested evidence, the court may find that the accused was telling lies, which undermines the credibility of the alibi defence.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (8)

  • Ssekitoleko v Uganda (1961) EA 531
  • R v Gusambizi s/o Wesonga (1948) EACA 65
  • R v Tubere s/o Ochen (1945) 12 EACA 63
  • Okello Okidi v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 1995)
  • Tindigwihura v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 19 of 1987)
  • Mibulo Edward v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 1995)
  • Bogere v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1997)
  • Sentale v Uganda [1968] EA 365

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Uganda v Dusabe Michael alias Boy and Nsabimana Richard alias Kadogo (Criminal Session No. 0033 of 2023) [2025] UGHC 342 (9 January 2025)
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.