Wakilii

Uganda v Engonu & Anor (Criminal Session Case No. 29 of 2012.)

High Court · [2015] UGHCCRD 18 · 2015 Conviction Entered AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance criminal trial on joint indictment for two counts of murder
Decision
Both accused convicted on two counts of murder and sentenced to 26 years imprisonment on each count, to run consecutively, with credit for time spent on remand since July 2011.

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 proved beyond reasonable doubt that both accused persons, acting with common intention, murdered Ekaju Justine and Ochom Emmanuel with malice aforethought. A1 Engonu was identified by the surviving victim at the scene; he shot one victim and participated in killing the other. Circumstantial evidence — including recovery of a gun, army uniforms, and the deceased Ekaju's voter's card near A1's home; testimony linking A2 as a close associate of A1 who possessed a gun and fled the area after the killings — established A2's participation. Both accused convicted on two counts of murder. Sentenced to 26 years imprisonment on each count, to run consecutively.

Outcome

Both accused convicted on two counts of murder and sentenced to 26 years imprisonment on each count, to run consecutively, with credit for time spent on remand since July 2011.

Facts

On 2 July 2011 at approximately 5:30 a.m. in Odapakol village, Serere district, Ariko Julius and his brother Ochom Emmanuel were travelling to the lake. Three armed men, one of whom Ariko identified as his neighbour Engonu (A1), stopped them. A1 shot Ariko at close range in the abdomen with a gun; Ariko fell but survived. A1 and two masked accomplices then attacked Ochom. Ariko escaped and hid in nearby bushes, from where he heard Ochom plead for his life and then heard gunshots. Two bodies were found at the scene, both with bullet wounds. The body of Ekaju Justine was found near a motorcycle; post-mortem examination revealed gunshot wounds to the trunk causing trauma to liver, kidney, and spleen. Police recovered an SMG rifle, grenades, army uniforms, mobile phones, and the deceased Ekaju's voter's card from a pot buried near A1's home. A1's concubine testified that A1 left home on the night of 1 July and returned at 6 a.m. on 2 July wearing blood-stained clothes. A2 Ojange was a close associate of A1; he had been seen with a gun at A1's residence in May 2011 and arrived at A1's home on the morning of the murders asking for money to repair a bicycle so he could flee to Ngora.

Issues

  1. Whether death of the two deceased persons was proved.
  2. Whether the deaths were unlawfully caused.
  3. Whether the deaths were caused with malice aforethought.
  4. Whether A1 Engonu participated in the murders.
  5. Whether A2 Ojange participated in the murders.
  6. Whether evidence irregularly obtained (directions to recovery of gun) was admissible.
  7. Whether the prosecution proved the doctrine of common intention.

Orders

  • A1 Engonu Cornelius convicted of murder contrary to s.188 of the Penal Code Act — Count One (murder of Ekaju Justine).
  • A1 Engonu Cornelius convicted of murder contrary to s.188 of the Penal Code Act — Count Two (murder of Ochom Emmanuel).
  • A2 Ojange Gabriel convicted of murder contrary to s.188 of the Penal Code Act — Count One (murder of Ekaju Justine).
  • A2 Ojange Gabriel convicted of murder contrary to s.188 of the Penal Code Act — Count Two (murder of Ochom Emmanuel).
  • A1 Engonu sentenced to 26 years imprisonment on each count, sentences to run consecutively.
  • A2 Ojange sentenced to 26 years imprisonment on each count, sentences to run consecutively.

Rules and key headnotes

Evidence — Circumstantial Evidence — Proof of Death — Presumption of Death in Absence of Post-Mortem Report
Death may be proved by circumstantial evidence where that evidence compels the inference of death and is inconsistent with any theory of the alleged deceased being alive, leaving no doubt that the person is deceased.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Murder — Malice Aforethought — Inference from Circumstances
Malice aforethought may be inferred from circumstantial evidence where the actions of the accused demonstrate that they did not care whether the deceased died, including where the deceased pleaded for their life immediately before being shot.
Evidence — Identification — Single Identifying Witness — Conditions Favourable for Correct Identification
Where there is a single identifying witness, the court must be satisfied that conditions favoured correct identification, including whether the accused was known to the witness, the conditions of lighting, the length of time taken to identify the accused, and the distance from which identification was made.
Evidence — Admissibility — Evidence Irregularly Obtained — Test for Admissibility
The test for admissibility of evidence is whether it is relevant to the matters in issue. If evidence is relevant, the court is not concerned with how it was obtained, with the exception of confessions not properly obtained.
Evidence — Documentary Evidence — Chain of Custody — Oral Evidence of Missing Exhibits
Where physical exhibits have been removed from police custody for legitimate reasons and cannot be produced at trial, oral evidence from witnesses who handled the exhibits from recovery through storage may establish the chain of custody and satisfy the court as to the existence and nature of the exhibits.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Common Intention — Elements — Inference from Presence and Conduct
To establish common intention, it must be shown that the accused shared with the actual perpetrators a common intention to pursue a specific unlawful purpose which led to the commission of the offence. Common intention may be inferred from the presence of the accused, their actions, and their omissions to dissociate from the unlawful conduct.
Evidence — Circumstantial Evidence — Standard for Conviction — Inculpatory Facts Must Be Incompatible with Innocence
To justify a conviction on circumstantial evidence, the inculpatory facts must be incompatible with the innocence of the accused and incapable of explanation upon any reasonable hypothesis other than guilt.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (10)

  • Kimweru v R [1968] EA 452
  • Asiku and Another v Uganda (Court of Appeal Criminal Appeal No. 203 of 2004)
  • Mureeba and Three Others v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 13 of 2003)
  • Simon Musoke v R (1958) EA 715
  • Bogere Charles refers
  • Abiud Muchiri & anor v R (Kenya HC criminal Appeal No. 22 of 2013) (2014) eKLR
  • Karuna s/o Kania v R (1955) 22 EACA 364
  • Mohamed Taki v R [1961] EA 206
  • Simbwa Paul v Uganda (Court of Appeal Criminal Appeal No. 23 of 2012)
  • Kisegerwa and Another v Uganda (Court of Appeal Criminal Appeal No. 6 of 1978)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Uganda v Engonu & Anor (Criminal Session Case No. 29 of 2012.) [2015] UGHCCRD 18 (8 June 2015)
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.