Wakilii

Uganda v Kyoshabire Justine and 2 Others (Criminal Session Case No 220 of 2023)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 265 · 2025 Conviction Entered AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance criminal trial for murder
Decision
Accused A1 Kyoshabire Justine and A2 Tushemerirwe Glance convicted of murder

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 two accused persons of murder after finding that the prosecution proved all ingredients beyond reasonable doubt. The court rejected a preliminary objection that the indictment was defective for using the word 'murdered' instead of 'malice aforethought', holding that 'murdered' in ordinary language encompasses malice aforethought. The court relied on accomplice evidence from the second accused's confession and circumstantial evidence that both accused were the only persons present when the deceased was strangled.

Outcome

Accused A1 Kyoshabire Justine and A2 Tushemerirwe Glance convicted of murder

Facts

On 26 July 2022 at Kinoni Trading Centre in Kiruhura district, the deceased Ssebuma Gabriel was found dead. The deceased had been attacked and hit with a hammer on 20 July 2022, was hospitalized, and returned home where his wife A1 Kyoshabire Justine nursed him with the assistance of A2 Tushemerirwe Glance. On the night of 26 July 2022, the deceased slept in a room with A1 and A2. At approximately 3:00 am, A1 called a neighbor to report that the deceased had died. A postmortem report revealed the cause of death was asphyxia secondary to strangulation. A2 Glance gave a confession statement detailing how she and A1 strangled the deceased with a rolled bedsheet tied around his neck while he slept. A3 Mujuni Pison denied knowing the deceased or the co-accused and claimed he was at home on the night in question.

Issues

  1. Whether the indictment was defective for failing to include the words 'malice aforethought' in the particulars of the offence.
  2. Whether the prosecution proved the death of a human being.
  3. Whether the prosecution proved that the death was caused unlawfully.
  4. Whether the prosecution proved that the death was caused with malice aforethought.
  5. Whether the prosecution proved that the accused persons participated in causing the death of the deceased.

Orders

  • Preliminary objection to the indictment overruled.
  • Prosecution proved ingredient 1 (death of a human being) beyond reasonable doubt.
  • Prosecution proved ingredient 2 (unlawful death) beyond reasonable doubt.
  • Prosecution proved ingredient 3 (malice aforethought) beyond reasonable doubt.
  • Prosecution proved ingredient 4 (participation of accused A1 and A2) beyond reasonable doubt.

Rules and key headnotes

Indictments — Defective Indictment — Use of Ordinary Language
An indictment that states the accused 'murdered' the deceased is not defective for failing to include the technical term 'malice aforethought' in the particulars of the offence, as the word 'murdered' in ordinary language encompasses unlawful killing with malice aforethought and complies with the requirement in section 26 of the Trial on Indictments Act to use ordinary language and avoid technical terms.
Accomplice Evidence — Competence and Corroboration
Under section 132 of the Evidence Act, an accomplice is a competent witness against an accused person, and corroboration is not mandatory where the accomplice is found to be truthful and identifies the co-accused as a participant, though corroborative evidence strengthens the case.
Murder — Malice Aforethought — Proof from Circumstances
Malice aforethought is a mental element that can be established from the surrounding circumstances of the death, the parts of the body injured, and the nature of the injuries. Strangulation of a human being demonstrates an intention to cause death, which constitutes malice aforethought.
Circumstantial Evidence — Sole Hypothesis
Where circumstantial evidence places the accused as the only persons present with the deceased at the time of death by strangulation, and this evidence is coupled with a confession from one accused implicating the other, the evidence leads to the sole hypothesis that the accused participated in causing the death.
Murder — Ingredients — Burden and Standard of Proof
In a prosecution for murder, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt all four ingredients: death of a human being, that the death was caused unlawfully, that the death was caused with malice aforethought, and that the accused participated in causing the death.

Legislation cited (10)

Cases cited (13)

  • 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)
  • Uganda v Byansi Peter (High Court Criminal Session No. 280 of 2014)
  • Matovu Frank and Another v Uganda (Court of Appeal Criminal Appeal No. 111 of 2018)
  • Uganda v Endrio and 3 Others (High Court Criminal Session No. 172 of 2016)
  • R v Gusambizi s/o Wesonga (1948) 15 EACA 65
  • Uganda v Bosco Okello [1992-93] HCB 68
  • Androa Asenua and Another v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1998)
  • Hadija Nasolo v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 14 of 2000)
  • R v Baskerville (1916) 2 KB 658
  • Senoga Sentumbwe v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 2014)
  • Rwalinda John v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 2015)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Uganda v Kyoshabire Justine and 2 Others (Criminal Session Case No 220 of 2023) [2025] UGHC 265 (7 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.