Wakilii

Uganda v Marikosojo (Criminal Session Case 12 of 1989)

High Court · [1990] UGHC 29 · 1990 Acquittal Entered AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance murder prosecution in the High Court
Decision
Accused acquitted and released forthwith

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

Held that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused caused the death of the deceased. The postmortem report was never tendered in evidence at trial—only identified—and therefore did not form part of the trial record, depriving the court of vital evidence on cause of death. Further, the alleged admissions by the accused to chiefs exercising police duties and made after arrest or after a decision to arrest had already been made were inadmissible under the Evidence Amendment Decree 1974 section 24. Accused acquitted.

Outcome

Accused acquitted and released forthwith

Facts

The accused, Mariko Sojo, was charged with murdering his father, Kariho Ambindrua, on 24 October 1986. On the night in question, the deceased, who had been drinking, heard the accused calling his child from the accused's home approximately 120–150 metres away. Angered by hearing the accused's voice, the deceased abused the accused and attacked him with a slasher at the accused's home. The fight was stopped by the deceased's brother, who removed the slasher. The accused entered his house, but the deceased returned, kicked open the door, and attacked the accused again without a weapon, throwing him down and strangling him. The accused's mother pushed the deceased off. The accused then struck the deceased once with a club and fled. The accused reported the fight to a local defence official that night and returned home. The following morning, the deceased was found dead outside his house with multiple injuries including cut wounds on the head and lips and bruises on the knees and arm. A postmortem examination was conducted but the report was not tendered at trial. The accused was arrested and charged with murder.

Issues

  1. Whether the deceased Karilo Ambindrua was dead.
  2. Whether the accused caused the death of the deceased.
  3. Whether the accused caused the death unlawfully.
  4. Whether the accused had malice aforethought.
  5. Whether a confession or admission made to a chief exercising police duties is admissible in evidence.
  6. Whether an admission made after arrest or after a decision to arrest had been made is admissible.

Orders

  • The accused is acquitted of the offence of murder.
  • The accused shall be released forthwith unless he is being held on some other lawful ground.

Rules and key headnotes

Evidence — Exhibits — Admissibility — Identification vs Production
For an exhibit to form part of the record of trial proceedings, it must be produced in evidence at that trial. Mere identification of an exhibit without producing it in evidence does not make the exhibit part of the record. The contents of an exhibit can only be considered if the exhibit is actually produced in evidence.
Evidence — Exhibits — Committal Proceedings vs Trial
Tendering an exhibit to a court at committal proceedings does not automatically make that exhibit form part of the evidence at trial in the High Court without producing it in evidence at the trial, because those two proceedings are distinct.
Murder — Elements — Proof of Cause of Death
In a murder prosecution, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused caused the death of the deceased. Without a postmortem report or medical evidence establishing the cause of death, the court cannot conclude that the accused caused the death, as the deceased could have died from some intervening illness apart from any injuries sustained.
Evidence — Confessions and Admissions — Chiefs Exercising Police Duties
A confession or admission made to a chief who is exercising duties normally exercised by police is not admissible in evidence, because in performing such duties the chief is for that purpose regarded as a police officer and is covered by section 24 of the Evidence Amendment Decree 1974.
Evidence — Confessions and Admissions — Admissions After Arrest
A confession or admission made to a chief after a decision to arrest has already been made, or after the arrest has been effected, is not admissible in evidence.
Customary Law — Repugnancy Test — Judicature Act Section 8
Under section 8 of the Judicature Act, a court may observe or enforce a custom only if it is not repugnant to natural justice, equity, and good conscience, and not incompatible either directly or by necessary implication with any written law. A custom that purports to deprive a person of any right of defence provided by law against an unjustifiable attack fails the repugnancy test and cannot be enforced.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (2)

  • Uganda v Gabriel Ojubo & Others (1976) HCB 84
  • Uganda vs. Odoki Cox Gabriel Ojobo & others

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Uganda v Marikosojo (Criminal Session Case 12 of 1989) [1990] UGHC 29 (27 April 1990)
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.