Wakilii

Uganda v Jaden Ashraf & Ors (HCT-00-CR-SC-0104-2015)

High Court · [2016] UGHCCRD 85 · 2016 Conviction Entered (A1 and A2); Acquittal Entered (A3) AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance criminal trial for murder in the High Court
Decision
A1 and A2 convicted and sentenced to 20 years imprisonment each; A3 acquitted and discharged

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 A1 (PC Jaden Ashraf) and A2 (Nakkungu Sandra) were guilty of murdering Ssebunya Eriya Bugembe Kasiwukira. The court found that both had common intention to kill the deceased. A1 was identified as the driver of the killer vehicle; A2's vehicle was the murder weapon and her conduct after the killing corroborated guilt. A3 (Nabikolo Sarah Sebunya) was acquitted as the prosecution failed to prove her participation beyond reasonable doubt.

Outcome

A1 and A2 convicted and sentenced to 20 years imprisonment each; A3 acquitted and discharged

Facts

On 17 October 2014, the deceased Ssebunya Eriya Bugembe Kasiwukira was killed in Diplomat Zone, Muyenga, Kampala. PW6 and PW7 saw a golden Mitsubishi Pajero with a silver bull bar parked giving double indicators. The deceased was walking on the road when the vehicle knocked him. He fell on the bonnet and then into the middle of the road, and the vehicle sped away. Post-mortem examination revealed multiple crush injuries including skull fractures, rib fractures, and internal organ damage. A1, a police constable, had approached PW16 and PW20 to arrange the killing of the deceased, stating the money would come from the deceased's wife. PW14 saw A1 seated at the steering wheel of A2's Pajero on the morning of 17 October 2014 shortly before the incident. A2 was the deceased's sister-in-law. Her Mitsubishi Pajero (UAE 018A) was identified as the killer vehicle. After the killing, A2 disappeared for three days, changed telephone lines, had the vehicle repaired and repainted, and sold it on 26 October 2014. Vehicle inspection revealed panel beating, respraying, and evidence of a bull bar recently removed. A3 was the deceased's wife; the marriage had been strained after the deceased took a second wife, but PW12 testified there had been reconciliation.

Issues

  1. Whether the deceased Ssebunya Eriya Bugembe Kasiwukira was dead.
  2. Whether the death of the deceased was unlawful.
  3. Whether whoever killed the deceased had malice aforethought.
  4. Whether the three accused persons (A1, A2, and A3) participated directly or indirectly in causing the death of the deceased.

Orders

  • A1 (Jaden Ashraf) convicted of murder contrary to sections 188 and 189 of the Penal Code Act.
  • A2 (Nakkungu Sandra) convicted of murder contrary to sections 188 and 189 of the Penal Code Act.
  • A1 sentenced to 20 years imprisonment (22 years less 2 years on remand).
  • A2 sentenced to 20 years imprisonment (22 years less 2 years on remand).
  • A3 (Nabikolo Sarah Sebunya) acquitted and set free unless lawfully held on other charges.

Rules and key headnotes

Murder — Proof of Essential Ingredients — Elements to be Proved
In a charge of murder, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt: (a) that the person alleged to be murdered is dead; (b) that the deceased died as a result of unlawful act or omission; (c) that whoever killed the deceased did so with malice aforethought; and (d) that the accused persons are the ones who participated directly or indirectly in causing the death of the deceased.
Murder — Unlawful Homicide — Presumption of Unlawfulness
All homicides are presumed unlawful unless excused by law. Death is always presumed unlawfully caused unless it was accidentally caused in circumstances which make it excusable.
Murder — Malice Aforethought — Proof by Circumstantial Evidence
Malice aforethought is a mental element of murder which is difficult to prove by direct evidence. In arriving at a conclusion as to whether malice aforethought has been established, the court must consider the weapon used, the manner in which it was used, and the part of the body injured.
Circumstantial Evidence — Standard of Proof — Incompatibility with Innocence
In a case depending exclusively upon circumstantial evidence, a court must before deciding on a conviction find that the inculpatory facts are incompatible with the innocence of the accused and incapable of explanation upon any hypothesis other than guilt.
Murder — Common Intention — Joint Liability under Section 20 of the Penal Code Act
Where two or more persons form a common intention to prosecute an unlawful purpose in conjunction with one another, and in the prosecution of that purpose an offence is committed of such nature that its commission was a probable consequence of the prosecution of that purpose, each of them is deemed to have committed the offence.
Circumstantial Evidence — Conduct After the Offence — Evidential Value
Conduct of an accused person immediately after the commission of an offence — including disappearance, disposal of a weapon or other evidence, changing telephone lines, and expressing fear of arrest — may corroborate other evidence of guilt and is conduct inconsistent with innocence.
Burden of Proof — Doubt to be Resolved in Favour of Accused
Where the prosecution evidence creates a reasonable doubt as to the participation of an accused person in the commission of an offence, that doubt must be resolved in favour of the accused, who is entitled to an acquittal.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (11)

  • Sekitoleko v R [1967] EA 531
  • Uganda v Aramanzani Mubiru [1996] HCB 35
  • R v Gusambizi s/o Wesonga (1948) 15 EACA 65
  • Akol Patrick and Others v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 60 of 2002)
  • Sharma Kooky and Kumar v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 44 of 2000)
  • Simon Musoke v R (1958) EA 715
  • Uganda v Godfrey Buterema (High Court Criminal Session Case No. 100 of 2012)
  • Simbwa Paul v Uganda (Court of Appeal Criminal Appeal No. 023 of 2012)
  • Woolmington v DPP [1935] AC 462
  • Nsabwe v Republic [2003] EA 480
  • Oketcho Richard v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 26 of 1995)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Uganda v Jaden Ashraf & Ors (HCT-00-CR-SC-0104-2015) [2016] UGHCCRD 85 (12 October 2016)
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.