Wakilii

Uganda v Kyarimpa (Criminal Session Case 499 of 2019)

High Court · [2023] UGHC 89 · 2023 Conviction Quashed — Convicted of Lesser Offence AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance criminal trial on indictment for murder
Decision
Accused acquitted of murder and convicted of manslaughter

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 accused was charged with murder but acquitted because the prosecution failed to prove malice aforethought beyond reasonable doubt. The court found that the death resulted from a domestic fight between husband and wife over coffee harvesting, where both parties inflicted injuries on each other without evidence of premeditation. The accused was convicted of the minor offence of manslaughter under section 87 of the Trial on Indictments Act, as the evidence established death of a human being, unlawful causation of death, and participation of the accused.

Outcome

Accused acquitted of murder and convicted of manslaughter

Facts

On 13 April 2019 at Kagango 1 Village in Ibanda District, the deceased Banyenzaki Tomasi returned home from a trading centre after being told that his wife, the accused Kyarimpa Bena, had harvested coffee belonging to the family. The deceased came home drunk and quarrelling, intending to attack the accused. A fight ensued between the deceased and the accused. During the scuffle, the deceased threw a panga at the accused which she dodged. The accused then struck the deceased on the head with a stick, causing him to bleed. The deceased also beat the accused on the shoulder. The deceased was taken by boda boda to Mbarara for medical treatment but died en route. A postmortem report confirmed the cause of death as raised intracranial pressure due to blunt force trauma. The accused pleaded not guilty to murder.

Issues

  1. Whether the prosecution proved all the ingredients of the offence of murder beyond reasonable doubt.
  2. Whether the accused acted in lawful self-defence.
  3. Whether the death of the deceased was caused with malice aforethought.
  4. Whether the accused could be convicted of the minor and cognate offence of manslaughter.

Orders

  • Accused acquitted of the charge of murder of Banyenzaki Tomasi contrary to sections 188 and 189 of the Penal Code Act.
  • Accused convicted of the offence of manslaughter contrary to sections 187 and 190 of the Penal Code Act.

Rules and key headnotes

Murder — Ingredients — Malice Aforethought — Proof Required
To secure a conviction for murder, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the death was caused with malice aforethought, which is a mental element that can be established from the surrounding circumstances, the parts of the body injured, and the nature of the injuries.
Self-Defence — Requirements — Imminent Danger and Reasonable Belief
Lawful self-defence exists when the accused reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of an attack which causes reasonable apprehension of death or grievous hurt, and the accused reasonably believes that the immediate use of force is necessary to defend against that danger. The accused must demonstrate by his or her actions that he or she does not want to fight.
Self-Defence — Cessation of Imminent Danger — Effect on Defence
Where the initial threat has passed and the accused is no longer in imminent danger of attack, the defence of self-defence cannot be fully available to absolve the accused of criminal responsibility for subsequent acts causing death.
Homicide — Presumption of Unlawfulness
The law presumes any homicide, being the killing of a human being by another, to be unlawful unless it is shown to be authorized by law or accidental.
Manslaughter — Conviction for Minor and Cognate Offence
Under section 87 of the Trial on Indictments Act, where a person is charged with an offence and facts are proved which reduce it to a minor and cognate offence, he or she may be convicted of the minor offence although he or she was not charged with it.
Manslaughter — Ingredients — Absence of Malice Aforethought
The ingredients of manslaughter are death of a human being, unlawful causation of death, and participation of the accused in causing the death. Manslaughter differs from murder in that it does not require proof of malice aforethought.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (8)

  • Nandudu Grace and Another v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 4 of 2009)
  • Miller v Minister of Pensions [1947] 1 All ER 372
  • Uganda v Monday Wilson (High Court Criminal Case No. 22 of 2017)
  • Matovu Frank and Another v Uganda (Court of Appeal Criminal Appeal No. 111 of 2018)
  • Uganda v Ijjo (High Court Criminal Session No. 76 of 2017)
  • R v Gusambizi s/o Wesonga (1948) 15 EACA 65
  • Uganda v Bosco Okello [1992-93] HCB 68
  • Uganda v Alijuna Matia (High Court Criminal Case No. 131 of 2011)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Uganda v Kyarimpa (Criminal Session Case 499 of 2019) [2023] UGHC 89 (6 September 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.