Wakilii

Uganda v Kule Yofesi and Kibaba Nyasio (Criminal Sessions Case 80 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 386 · 2025 Conviction Entered AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance criminal trial for murder
Decision
Both accused convicted of murder and sentenced to 17 years, 11 months and 26 days imprisonment after deduction of time on remand

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 both accused of murder. The prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased died from severe neck strangulation, an unlawful act actuated by malice aforethought. The court applied the last seen doctrine: credible evidence from three witnesses established that the accused were the last persons seen with the deceased alive on 23 April 2023. The deceased's body was discovered the following day in a forest. The accused failed to provide a cogent explanation. The court sentenced each accused to 20 years imprisonment less time on remand.

Outcome

Both accused convicted of murder and sentenced to 17 years, 11 months and 26 days imprisonment after deduction of time on remand

Facts

On 23 April 2023, the deceased Bwambale Jerome was last seen alive at Butimba Trading Centre in Kasese district in the company of the two accused persons. Three witnesses testified to seeing the deceased with the accused that evening. The deceased's wife met the three men at midday and was told by one accused to go home and they would bring her husband later. The deceased never returned home. His body was discovered on 26 April 2023 in a forest near a river. The post-mortem report established death by severe neck strangulation and hypovolemic shock due to internal and external haemorrhage. The body bore visible signs of violent assault including facial swelling and bleeding from ears, mouth and nose. Both accused denied being with the deceased but their testimonies were inconsistent and uncorroborated. One accused's police statement contradicted his court testimony and confirmed he had been with the deceased.

Issues

  1. Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased Bwambale Jerome died.
  2. Whether the death of the deceased was caused by an unlawful act.
  3. Whether the unlawful act causing death was actuated by malice aforethought.
  4. Whether the accused persons Kule Yofesi and Kibaba Nyasio caused the unlawful death of the deceased.

Orders

  • Kule Yofesi and Kibaba Nyasio convicted of murder contrary to Sections 171 and 172 of the Penal Code Act.
  • Each convict sentenced to 20 years imprisonment.
  • Time spent on remand of 2 years and 4 days deducted from sentence.
  • Each convict to serve a remaining term of 17 years, 11 months and 26 days imprisonment.
  • Right of appeal explained.

Rules and key headnotes

Murder — Burden and Standard of Proof — Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt
In criminal trials, the burden of proof always rests on the prosecution to prove each ingredient of the offence beyond reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond the shadow of a doubt but must carry a high degree of probability such that only a remote possibility in favour of the accused remains, which can be dismissed as not in the least probable.
Murder — Essential Ingredients — Death, Unlawful Act, Malice Aforethought, Participation
To secure a conviction for murder, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt: (1) death of a human being occurred; (2) the death was caused by an unlawful act; (3) the unlawful act was actuated by malice aforethought; and (4) it was the accused who caused the unlawful death.
Murder — Malice Aforethought — Inference from Circumstances
Malice aforethought may be inferred from circumstantial evidence including the nature of wounds inflicted, the part of the body injured, the type of weapon used, the conduct of the accused before and after the injuries, and the manner in which the weapon was used. Where death results from severe neck strangulation causing a neck fracture, malice aforethought is established as strangulation is a slow and deliberate process targeting a vital part of the body.
Circumstantial Evidence — Standard for Conviction — Incompatibility with Innocence
Where the prosecution case depends solely on circumstantial evidence, 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 guilt. The court must be satisfied that there are no co-existing circumstances which weaken or destroy the inference of guilt.
Last Seen Doctrine — Rebuttable Presumption of Responsibility
The last seen doctrine creates a rebuttable presumption that a person last seen with a deceased person bears responsibility for the death. Where the deceased was last seen alive with the accused, the accused has a duty to give an explanation as to how the deceased met his or her death. In the absence of a cogent and truthful explanation, the court is justified in drawing the inference that the accused killed the deceased.
Credibility — Inconsistent Statements — Police Statement Contradicting Court Testimony
Where an accused person's testimony in court is inconsistent with a prior statement made to police, the prior statement may be used as corroboration of prosecution evidence and may demonstrate that the court testimony is an afterthought. Such inconsistency undermines the credibility of the accused's defence.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (14)

  • Woolmington v DPP (1935) AC 462
  • Miller v Minister of Pensions (1947) 2 All ER 372
  • Abdu Ngobi v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1991)
  • Kimweri v R [1968] EA 452
  • R v Gusambizi s/o Wesonga (1948) 15 EACA 65
  • R v Tubere s/o Ochen (1945) 12 EACA 63
  • Mumbere v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 15 of 2014)
  • Nandudu Grace and Another v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 4 of 2009)
  • Francis Coke v Uganda [1992-93] HCB 43
  • Byaruhanga Fodori v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 18 of 2002)
  • R v Shaban bin Donaldi (1940) 7 EACA 60
  • Busingye Paul and Another v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 48 of 2019)
  • Moses Jua v The State (2007) LPELR-CA/IL/42/2006
  • Jagenda John v Uganda (Court of Appeal Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 2011)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Uganda v Kule Yofesi and Kibaba Nyasio (Criminal Sessions Case 80 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 386 (15 May 2025)
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.