Wakilii

Uganda v Kakuru & Anor (HCT-01-CR-SC-0004 OF 2015)

High Court · [2018] UGHCCRD 135 · 2018 Acquittal Entered AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Ruling on submission of no case to answer in murder trial at High Court
Decision
Both accused acquitted and discharged on no case to answer

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 upheld a submission of no case to answer on a murder charge where prosecution witnesses testified that the two accused were fishing at the lake when the co-accused committed the murder. The court held that prosecution evidence exonerated the accused and failed to establish common intention under s.20 of the Penal Code Act. Both accused were acquitted under s.73(1) of the Trial on Indictments Act.

Outcome

Both accused acquitted and discharged on no case to answer

Facts

Three accused persons were indicted for the murder of Kabiira Farida on 5 July 2014 at Kisenyi B cell, Ntoroko District. A2 (Uyeregiu Julius) pleaded guilty under a plea bargain arrangement and was sentenced to 16 years imprisonment. A1 (Kakuru Jackson) and A3 (Mubero Opio) pleaded not guilty. The prosecution relied on a post mortem report and two witnesses. PW1 (Umegio Julius) testified that A1 and A3 left for fishing at the lake with their nets and equipment, and he saw them go. PW2 (Muhindi Saidi), the LC.I Chairman, confirmed that during a search blood stains were found at the doorway of A1's house, but stated that A1 and A3 were seen returning from the lake the following morning with fish. PW2 testified that the two accused had left the house key with A2 who had slept in A1's room. The head of the deceased was recovered in A1's house. In his guilty plea, A2 stated he alone murdered the deceased using a panga and that the others were just joined to him. At the close of the prosecution case, defence counsel submitted no case to answer.

Issues

  1. Whether a prima facie case had been established against A1 (Kakuru Jackson) and A3 (Mubero Opio) to require them to enter their defence on a charge of murder.
  2. Whether the prosecution evidence established common intention under s.20 of the Penal Code Act linking A1 and A3 to the murder committed by A2 (Uyeregiu Julius).
  3. Whether the accused persons participated in the commission of the offence.

Orders

  • Submission of no case to answer upheld.
  • Plea of not guilty entered against both accused.
  • A1 (Kakuru Jackson) and A3 (Mubero Opio) acquitted under s.73(1) of the Trial on Indictments Act on no case to answer.

Rules and key headnotes

No Case to Answer — Standard for Upholding Submission
Where prosecution evidence exonerates the accused persons, no reasonable tribunal properly directing its mind on the law and evidence can proceed to convict, and a submission of no case to answer must be upheld.
Common Intention — Section 20 of the Penal Code Act — Requirements for Establishment
For common intention under s.20 of the Penal Code Act to be established, two or more persons must form a common intention to prosecute an unlawful purpose in conjunction with one another; mere presence at the scene or ownership of premises where an offence was committed, without evidence of joint purpose, is insufficient to establish common intention.
Participation in Offence — Burden on Prosecution to Prove
The prosecution must establish the participation of each accused person in the commission of the offence; where credible evidence places accused persons away from the scene of crime at the time of commission and a co-accused admits sole responsibility, participation is not established.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (2)

  • Charles Onusula v Uganda (1979) HCB 86
  • Bhat V.R.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Uganda v Kakuru & Anor (HCT-01-CR-SC-0004 OF 2015) [2018] UGHCCRD 135 (31 May 2018)
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.