Wakilii

Uganda v Ezedio Teberi (Criminal Session Case No.1 of 1992)

High Court · [1994] UGHC 19 · 1994 Conviction Quashed (Murder) / Convicted (Manslaughter) AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance criminal trial for murder in High Court
Decision
Accused acquitted of murder but convicted of manslaughter

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

Accused acquitted of murder but convicted of manslaughter. The court found on circumstantial evidence that the accused unlawfully killed his wife after a quarrel, rejecting the defence of suicide. However, malice aforethought was not established due to possible provocation, intoxication, and self-defence, negating the mental element required for murder. Conviction entered for manslaughter under section 182 of the Penal Code Act.

Outcome

Accused acquitted of murder but convicted of manslaughter

Facts

On or about 27 September 1990 at Marachi village, Tororo District, the accused Ezedio Teberi and his wife Goreti Akello had a quarrel. A witness (PW4) separated them. The couple retired to their house. Shortly after, a voice was heard crying for help from inside the house. The accused then announced that his wife had had an accident. When PW4 looked through the door, she saw the accused pushing the deceased's body upwards. The deceased was found hanging on a wire in the house with her feet touching the ground. Another witness (PW1) testified that the accused had attempted to set his own house on fire that evening. The accused claimed in his unsworn statement that the deceased harassed him after the quarrel and committed suicide by hanging while he was asleep, and that he tried unsuccessfully to rescue her. Medical evidence was inconclusive on whether the deceased was already dead when the body was made to hang.

Issues

  1. Whether the deceased Goreti Akello was unlawfully killed or died by suicide.
  2. Whether the accused Ezedio Teberi was responsible for the death of the deceased.
  3. Whether the prosecution proved malice aforethought under section 186 of the Penal Code Act.

Orders

  • Accused found not guilty of murder and acquitted of that offence.
  • Accused found guilty of manslaughter under section 182 of the Penal Code Act.
  • Accused convicted of manslaughter.

Rules and key headnotes

Murder — Burden of Proof — Standard of Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt
In a criminal case the duty to prove the guilt of an accused person rests on the prosecution, which must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. An accused person has no duty of proving his innocence.
Murder — Elements — Prosecution Duty to Prove All Elements
In a murder case, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that a human being was killed, that the killing was with malice aforethought as defined under section 186 of the Penal Code Act, and that the accused took part in the killing.
Homicide — Unlawful Death — Burden of Establishing Lawful Excuse
In all cases of homicide, death is said to be unlawfully caused unless it is shown that it was accidentally caused or that it was authorised by law.
Circumstantial Evidence — Test for Conviction — Incompatibility with Innocence
In a case depending exclusively upon circumstantial evidence, the court must, before arriving at a conviction, find 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. Circumstantial evidence must be narrowly examined as it may be easily fabricated.
Murder — Malice Aforethought — Burden of Proof — Factors for Determination
The prosecution bears the burden of proving malice aforethought. In deciding whether malice aforethought has been established, the court is guided by factors such as the nature of injury caused, the part of the body where such injury was inflicted, and the nature of weapon used in inflicting such injury.
Manslaughter — Negation of Malice Aforethought — Provocation, Intoxication, Self-Defence
Where facts point to the possibility of an accused having acted in self-defence using excessive force, or under provocation, or lacking capacity to form malice aforethought due to intoxication, such facts may effectively negate the existence of malice aforethought, reducing murder to manslaughter.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (9)

  • Okath Okale v Republic (1965) EA 555
  • Gusambizi s/o Wesonga v R [1948] 15 EACA 65
  • Shubadin Merali and another v Uganda [1963] EA 647
  • Simon Musoke v R [1958] EA 715
  • Teper v R [1952] AC 480
  • v Uganda [1967] EA 328 at page 331
  • Tubere s/o Ocheni v R [1945] 12 EACA 53
  • Lokoya v Uganda [1968] EA 332
  • Uganda v Abudalla Babi (Criminal Session Case No. 24 of 1993)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Uganda v Ezedio Teberi (Criminal Session Case No.1 of 1992) [1994] UGHC 19 (3 May 1994)
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.