Wakilii

Uganda v Hon. Akbar Hussein Godi (HCT-03-CR-SC 257 of 2010)

High Court · [2011] UGHC 188 · 2011 Conviction Entered AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance criminal trial for murder following denial of charges
Decision
Accused convicted of murder

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 High Court convicted Hon. Akbar Hussein Godi of the murder of his wife Rehema Ceasar, finding that circumstantial evidence—including phone records linking the accused and deceased on the night of the murder, ballistic evidence that cartridges recovered at the scene were fired from the accused's pistol, soil matching that found at the scene on shoes recovered from his home, and evidence of persistent threats and domestic violence—proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused killed the deceased with malice aforethought. The Court rejected the accused's alibi defence as inconsistent with phone location data.

Outcome

Accused convicted of murder

Facts

On 4 December 2008, Rehema Ceasar was shot dead in Lukojjo village, Mukono District. The deceased was the wife of the accused, Hon. Akbar Hussein Godi. The marriage had broken down amid persistent domestic violence; the deceased had left the accused's home and taken refuge at NANA Hostel. The prosecution alleged the accused made repeated attempts to contact her and issued death threats concerning information she had seen on his laptop, including photographs of him with Kony rebels. On the evening of 4 December 2008, phone records showed the deceased and accused communicated twice near Karo House, Kampala. The deceased left her sisters' home that evening saying she was going for dinner. Later that night, witnesses saw a man chase and shoot the deceased twice, leaving her dead by the roadside. When the accused's pistol was forensically examined, cartridges recovered from the scene were confirmed to have been fired from it. Soil samples from shoes found in the accused's house matched soil from the murder scene.

Issues

  1. Whether the death of Rehema Ceasar was proved beyond reasonable doubt.
  2. Whether the death of Rehema Ceasar was unlawful.
  3. Whether the death was caused with malice aforethought.
  4. Whether the accused, Hon. Akbar Hussein Godi, participated in causing the death of Rehema Ceasar.
  5. Whether circumstantial evidence adduced by the prosecution was sufficient to prove the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
  6. Whether the accused's alibi defence was credible.
  7. Whether statements of threats made by the deceased before her death were admissible under Section 30(a) of the Evidence Act.
  8. Whether expert ballistic and soil evidence proved a connection between the accused and the crime scene.

Orders

  • Accused found guilty of murder contrary to sections 188 and 189 of the Penal Code Act.
  • Accused convicted accordingly.

Rules and key headnotes

Murder — Essential Ingredients — Burden of Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt
On an indictment for murder, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt: (i) the death of a person; (ii) that the death was unlawful; (iii) that death was caused with malice aforethought; and (iv) that the accused participated in causing the death.
Circumstantial Evidence — Standard of Proof — Inculpatory Facts Incompatible with Innocence
Before convicting on circumstantial evidence alone, the court must 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, and that there are no co-existing circumstances which would weaken or destroy the inference of guilt.
Malice Aforethought — Inference from Weapon Used, Body Part Targeted, and Assailant's Conduct
Malice aforethought may be inferred from the nature of the weapon used (if lethal), the body part targeted by the assailant (if vulnerable), the intensity of the assault, and the conduct of the assailant before, during, and after the attack.
Hearsay — Dying Declarations and Circumstances of Transaction Leading to Death — Section 30(a) Evidence Act
Statements, written or verbal, made by a deceased person concerning the cause of their death or any circumstances of the transaction which resulted in their death are admissible under Section 30(a) of the Evidence Act as relevant facts, whether or not the person who made them was under expectation of death, when the cause of death comes into question.
Expert Evidence — Ballistics and Forensic Science — Weight and Corroboration
Courts are not bound by the opinion of an expert, but expert evidence of a scientific nature (such as ballistic and soil analysis) is extremely persuasive in assisting the court to reach its own conclusion. The opinion of an expert is considered together with other relevant facts in reaching a final decision.
Alibi — Burden of Proof on Prosecution
When an accused person sets up an alibi, the accused assumes no responsibility of proving the alibi. It is the duty of the prosecution to prove the alibi to be false beyond reasonable doubt.
Circumstantial Evidence — Probative Value — Accumulation of Inculpatory Facts
Circumstantial evidence is very often the best evidence. It is evidence of surrounding circumstances which, by intensified examination, is capable of proving a proposition with the accuracy of mathematics. It is no derogation of evidence to say that it is circumstantial.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (16)

  • Woolmington v DPP (1935) AC 462
  • Sekitoleko v Uganda (1967) EA 531
  • Kiraga v Uganda (1976) HCB 305
  • Lusambizi s/o Wesonga v R (1948) 15 EACA 65
  • Simoni Musoke v R (1958) EA 715
  • Musoke Kilyowa & 3 Ors v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 4 of 1985)
  • Raubeni Bagamuhunda v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 2 of 1987)
  • Uganda v Odwong & another (1992-1993) HCB 70
  • Shah v Shah (2003) EA 290
  • Uganda v Dusman Sabuni (1981) HCB 1
  • Mureeba Janet & 2 Others v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 15 of 2003)
  • Mureeba Janet & 2 Others v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 13 of 2003)
  • Tumuheire v Uganda (1967) EA 328
  • R v Taylor, Weaver and Doron (1928) 21 Cr App R 20
  • Tinkamalirwa & Anor v Uganda (1988-90) HCB 5
  • Miller v Minister of Pensions [1947] 2 All ER 372

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Uganda v Hon. Akbar Hussein Godi (HCT-03-CR-SC 257 of 2010) [2011] UGHC 188 (11 February 2011)
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.