Wakilii

Uganda v Kasolo and 5 Others (Criminal Case 571 of 2020)

High Court · [2023] UGHCCRD 148 · 2023 Five Accused Convicted; One Acquitted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance criminal trial in the High Court Criminal Division on charges of kidnap with intent to murder, murder, and aggravated robbery
Decision
Five accused persons convicted on all counts and remanded for sentencing. One accused person acquitted and discharged.

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 five of six accused persons on all counts of kidnap with intent to murder, murder, and aggravated robbery. The court found that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the victims were forcefully abducted from their home, robbed of property and money, and subsequently murdered in Mukono. The convictions rested on accomplice evidence corroborated by confessional statements, scene reconstruction video, call data records, and admissions by the accused. The court held that the accused acted in pursuance of a common intention under section 20 of the Penal Code Act. The sixth accused was acquitted for lack of evidence linking him to the offences.

Outcome

Five accused persons convicted on all counts and remanded for sentencing. One accused person acquitted and discharged.

Facts

On the night of 28 August 2019, Nagirinya Maria Gateni and Kitayimbwa Ronald were forcefully abducted from the gate of Nagirinya's home at Nabisasilo Zone, Rubaga Division, Kampala. The assailants forced the victims into their vehicle, a white Spacio registration number UBA 570V, and drove them to Mukono District. The victims were compelled to disclose their mobile money PIN numbers. In Mukono, the victims were brutally murdered using a car jack and a log, sustaining severe head injuries. Their bodies were later recovered from Nakitutuli valley, Mukono. The assailants stole the motor vehicle, two mobile phones, and cash totalling UGX 284,000. Mobile money was withdrawn from the victims' phones on 29 and 31 August 2019. Call data records, scene reconstruction video, and accomplice testimony placed the accused at the scene of the crimes. The motor vehicle was later abandoned in Nateete.

Issues

  1. Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the offence of kidnap with intent to murder contrary to section 243(1)(a) of the Penal Code Act.
  2. Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the offence of murder contrary to sections 188 and 189 of the Penal Code Act.
  3. Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the offence of aggravated robbery contrary to sections 285 and 286(2) of the Penal Code Act.
  4. Whether each of the accused persons participated in the commission of the offences and shared a common intention to prosecute an unlawful purpose.
  5. Whether the defence of alibi raised by A1 and A2 was credible and sufficient to create reasonable doubt.

Orders

  • Kasolo Coporiyamu (A1) convicted on all six counts.
  • Lubega Johnson (A2) convicted on all six counts.
  • Kalyango Nasif (A3) convicted on all six counts.
  • Kiseka Hassan (A4) convicted on all six counts.
  • Mpanga Sharif (A5) convicted on all six counts.
  • Katerega Sadat (A6) acquitted and set free unless being held on other lawful charges.

Rules and key headnotes

Kidnap with Intent to Murder — Elements of the Offence — Taking Against Will by Force
To prove kidnap with intent to murder under section 243(1)(a) of the Penal Code Act, the prosecution must establish: (1) taking away of a person; (2) by force or fraud; (3) against the victim's will; (4) with intent to murder; and (5) participation of the accused. The intent to murder may be inferred from the fact that the victims were subsequently found murdered.
Murder — Malice Aforethought — Inference from Nature of Injuries
Malice aforethought may be inferred when harm is directed at a sensitive and vulnerable part of the body. The court must consider whether death was a natural consequence of the act and whether the accused foresaw death as a natural consequence. Multiple fractures to the skull, head, and neck sustained through blunt force trauma are sufficient to establish malice aforethought.
Aggravated Robbery — Theft Proven by Asportation Without Consent
Under section 254(1) of the Penal Code Act, there is no legal requirement to prove ownership to establish theft. Once asportation of property takes place without the consent of the person in possession, theft has occurred.
Accomplice Evidence — Competence and Corroboration — Section 132 Evidence Act
An accomplice is a competent witness under section 132 of the Evidence Act and conviction may proceed on uncorroborated accomplice testimony. However, it is desirable that such evidence be corroborated with independent evidence connecting the accused to the crime. Corroboration must be evidence rendering it probable that the accomplice's story is true and reasonably safe to act upon.
Confessional Statements — Retracted Confessions — Standard of Proof
A trial court must accept a retracted or repudiated confession with caution. Before founding a conviction on such a confession, the court must be fully satisfied that in all circumstances the confession is true. Corroboration is not mandatory in law, but the court will normally look for corroboration in some material particular by independent evidence. The court may act on a confession alone if fully satisfied after considering all material points and surrounding circumstances that the confession cannot but be true.
Common Intention — Section 20 Penal Code Act — Joint Enterprise
Under section 20 of the Penal Code Act, when two or more persons form a common intention to prosecute an unlawful purpose and in the prosecution of that purpose an offence is committed of such a nature that its commission was a probable consequence, each is deemed to have committed the offence. Common intention may be inferred from the presence of the accused, their actions, and omission to disassociate themselves. It is not necessary to prove a pre-arranged plan. All participants are culpable for offences committed in pursuance of a criminal purpose held in common, even if they were not present at all scenes where the offences occurred.
Defence of Alibi — Failure to Give Notice — Weight to be Accorded
Where an accused fails to give notice of intention to rely on alibi before trial or fails to furnish particulars of the alibi to the prosecution before close of the prosecution case, the court has discretion not to accord weight to that defence. To raise alibi at the earliest opportunity gives the prosecution opportunity to inquire into the defence. Raising alibi only at the defence stage, without having put it to prosecution witnesses in cross-examination, raises doubt as to whether it was prepared in the interval.

Legislation cited (10)

Cases cited (22)

  • Wilmington v DPP [1935] AC 462
  • Uganda v Musimami & 2 Others (Criminal Session No. 31 of 2011)
  • Uganda v Mwesigwa Jamada & 3 Others (High Court Criminal Session Case No. 1348 of 2016)
  • R v Gusambizi s/o Wesonga (1948) 15 EACA 65
  • R v Tubere s/o Ochen (1954) EACA 63
  • Akol Patrick & Others v Uganda (2006) HCB Vol. 16
  • Nanyonjo Harriet & Another v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 24 of 2002)
  • Sula Kasiira v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 20 of 1993)
  • Sekitoleko v Uganda [1967] EA 531
  • Bogere Moses v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1997)
  • Moses Bogere and Another v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1997)
  • Nasolo v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 14 of 2000) [2003] EA 181
  • R v Baskerville [1916] 2 KB 658
  • Serunkuma Edirisa & Others v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 147 of 2015)
  • Festo Androa Asenua & Another v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1998)
  • Tuwamoi v Uganda (1967) EA 84
  • Topher v R [1952] AC 489
  • James Sawoabiri & Another v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 1990)
  • Festo Androa Asenwa and Another v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1998)
  • Kasumba Kenneth & Others v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 23 of 2016)
  • Uganda v Sunday Herbert (High Court Criminal Case No. 162 of 2021)
  • Juma Ramadhan Vs Republic Cr. App. No. 1 of 1973 (unreported)

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Uganda v Kasolo and 5 Others (Criminal Case 571 of 2020) [2023] UGHCCRD 148 (19 October 2023)
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.