Wakilii

Uganda v Kato Kajubi Godfrey (HCT-O6-CRSCO16 2OO9)

High Court · [2010] UGHC 4 · 2010 Acquittal Entered AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal trial following indictment for murder; ruling on no case to answer submission at close of prosecution case
Decision
Accused acquitted and ordered released from prison immediately unless remanded for another offence

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 the no case to answer submission and acquitted the accused of murder. The court found that the principal prosecution witnesses, who were accomplices, were manifestly unreliable and had deliberately lied to the court about the circumstances of the actual killing. Major contradictions in the prosecution evidence on matters going to the root of the case, combined with the absence of sufficient independent corroboration, meant no reasonable tribunal could safely convict on the evidence adduced.

Outcome

Accused acquitted and ordered released from prison immediately unless remanded for another offence

Facts

On 27 October 2008, Kasirye Joseph, a 12-year-old boy, disappeared from his grandfather's home at Kayugi village in Masaka District. His body was discovered the next day in a swamp, decapitated and with genitalia removed. Kateregga Umaru (PW3) and his wife Nabukeera Mariam (PW4) were arrested after suspicious conduct, and initially implicated the accused Kato Kajubi Godfrey as having collected the severed body parts and paid them money. The two co-accused were later discharged by nolle prosequi and became prosecution witnesses. Physical evidence included a blood-stained jerrycan and clothes recovered from Kateregga's home, mobile phone records showing communication between the accused and Kateregga, and postmortem findings confirming the deceased's head, neck and genitalia had been cut off with a sharp object.

Issues

  1. Whether the prosecution established a prima facie case requiring the accused to enter a defence.
  2. Whether the evidence of accomplice witnesses Kateregga Umaru (PW3) and Nabukeera Mariam (PW4) was sufficiently credible and corroborated to support a conviction.
  3. Whether the principal prosecution witnesses were so manifestly unreliable that no reasonable tribunal could safely convict on their evidence.

Orders

  • Accused Kato Kajubi Godfrey found not guilty of the offence of murder contrary to sections 188 and 189 of the Penal Code Act.
  • Accused acquitted of the offence.
  • Accused to be released from prison and set at liberty immediately unless otherwise lawfully remanded for another offence.

Rules and key headnotes

Criminal Procedure — No Case to Answer — Prima Facie Case Test
A prima facie case means one where a reasonable tribunal, properly directing its mind to the law and the evidence, could convict if no explanation is offered by the defence. A mere scintilla of evidence can never be enough, nor can any amount of worthless discredited evidence establish a prima facie case.
Criminal Procedure — No Case to Answer — Grounds for Upholding Submission
A submission of no case to answer can be upheld either where there is no evidence to prove an essential element in the alleged offence, or the prosecution evidence has been so discredited in cross-examination or is so manifestly unreliable that no reasonable tribunal can safely convict thereon.
Evidence — Accomplice Evidence — Competence of Witness
An accomplice who has been jointly indicted with an accused person is incompetent to testify against that accused person unless the accomplice is tendered a pardon, or has been discharged, acquitted or convicted. Once discharged by nolle prosequi, an accomplice ceases to be an accused person in that case and becomes a competent witness.
Evidence — Accomplice Evidence — Corroboration Requirement
Though an accomplice is a competent witness, the court may presume that he is not worthy of credit unless he is corroborated in material particulars. Courts almost invariably start with the presumption against the trustworthiness of the accomplice and refuse to convict on uncorroborated evidence. One accomplice's evidence is not corroboration of the testimony of another accomplice.
Evidence — Credibility Assessment — Contradictions and Deliberate Lies
If principal prosecution witnesses have contradicted themselves on very material aspects and have been shown to be most unreliable by deliberately lying to the court about matters going to the root of the case, and no reasonable explanation is offered for those lies, a submission of no case to answer may succeed.
Murder — Malice Aforethought — Inference from Weapon and Injuries
Where the weapon used is a deadly or lethal weapon, or where a lethal weapon is used savagely or where the vulnerable parts of the body of the deceased were affected by the injuries, malice aforethought would be more readily inferred by the court. The intention to kill may be inferred from the nature of the harm which caused the death.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (17)

  • Bhatt v R [1957] E.A. 332
  • Uganda v Stephen Onyabo and 3 Others (1979) H.C.B. 39
  • Uganda v Alfred Ateu [1974] HCB 179
  • Uganda v Katabazi Manuel [1977] HCB 109
  • R v Tubere s/o Ochen (1945) 12 EACA 64
  • Solomon Mungai and others v R [1965] E.A. 782
  • Moses Kayondo v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 11 of 1992)
  • Otim Gabriel Ogola v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 16 of 1993)
  • Davies v DPP [1954] 1 All E.R. 507
  • R v Baskerville [1916] 2 K.B. 658
  • Batala v Uganda [1974] 1 E.A. 402
  • Fred Sabahashi v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 23 of 1993)
  • Alfred Tajar v Uganda (Court of Appeal Criminal Appeal No. 167 of 1969)
  • Francis Tuicahirwa v Uganda (Court of Appeal Criminal Appeal No. 67 of 1972)
  • Tomasi Omukono and Another v Uganda (Court of Appeal Criminal Appeal No. 4 of 1977)
  • Rukundo Fred and Another v Uganda (Court of Appeal Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1996)
  • Practice Note [1962] 1 All. E.R. 448

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Uganda v Kato Kajubi Godfrey (HCT-O6-CRSCO16_2OO9) [2010] UGHC 4 (23 April 2010)
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.