Wakilii

Uganda v Muhereza and 2 Others (HCT-01-CR-SC 223 of 2019)

High Court · [2022] UGHC 147 · 2022 Conviction Upheld; Acquittal Entered AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance criminal trial for murder
Decision
A1 and A2 convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment; A3 acquitted and discharged

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 A1 Muhereza Rauben and A2 Baryeija Justus of five counts of murder and sentenced each to life imprisonment, finding their confessions voluntary, true, and corroborated by circumstantial evidence and prior threats. A3 Turyahikayo Allan was acquitted as the evidence against him was insufficient.

Outcome

A1 and A2 convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment; A3 acquitted and discharged

Facts

On 14 March 2019, five children aged between one month and nine years were murdered in their home in Kahompo Village, Kyenjojo District. The children's father, PW1 Tumwebaze Stephen, was away on a business trip. The children's mother was thrown into a river but survived, later committing suicide due to trauma. The accused persons were from a family that had a longstanding grudge against PW1's family arising from the 2012/2013 killing of Bright Akampurira, a relative of the accused, by PW5 Ndyanabo Godfrey, PW1's brother, during a fight. PW5 was charged with murder but released on bail. Despite a reconciliation process involving payment of money, the accused persons continued to threaten revenge. Following investigations, A1 Muhereza Rauben, A2 Baryeija Justus, and A3 Turyahikayo Allan were arrested. A1 and A2 made Charge and Caution Statements admitting participation in the murders and implicating each other, A3, and one Kagurano Emmanuel who remained at large. The statements were later repudiated but admitted after a trial within a trial.

Issues

  1. Whether the death of five human beings occurred.
  2. Whether the deaths were caused unlawfully.
  3. Whether the deaths were caused with malice aforethought.
  4. Whether the accused persons participated in the crime.
  5. Whether the Charge and Caution Statements of A1 and A2 were voluntary and admissible.
  6. Whether the Charge and Caution Statements of A1 and A2 were corroborated.
  7. Whether the Charge and Caution Statement of A1 could be used against A2 and vice versa.
  8. Whether the accused persons shared a common intention to prosecute an unlawful purpose.

Orders

  • A1 Muhereza Rauben convicted of murder on all five counts.
  • A2 Baryeija Justus alias Yusi convicted of murder on all five counts.
  • A3 Turyahikayo Allan found not guilty and acquitted on all counts.
  • A3 Turyahikayo Allan discharged and to be released forthwith unless held on other lawful grounds.
  • A1 Muhereza Rauben sentenced to life imprisonment on each of the five counts, sentences to run concurrently, with deduction of 3 years, 1 month and 2 days spent on remand.
  • A2 Baryeija Justus alias Yusi sentenced to life imprisonment on each of the five counts, sentences to run concurrently, with deduction of 3 years, 1 month and 3 days spent on remand.
  • Each convict advised of right of appeal against conviction and sentence within fourteen days.

Rules and key headnotes

Murder — Ingredients — Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt
On a charge of murder, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt: (i) that the death of a human being occurred; (ii) that the death was caused unlawfully; (iii) that death was caused with malice aforethought; and (iv) that the accused participated in the crime.
Malice Aforethought — Inference from Circumstances
Malice aforethought may be inferred from the weapon used, the part of the body targeted, the degree of injury, and the conduct of the accused before and after the act. Where a deadly weapon adapted for cutting is used on vulnerable parts of the body such as the head and neck, causing multiple severe injuries extending to the skull and brain matter, the intention to cause death or knowledge that death would probably result is established.
Confessions — Voluntariness — Trial Within a Trial
When the admissibility of an extra-judicial statement is challenged, the objecting accused must be given a chance to establish, by evidence, his grounds of objection through a trial within a trial. The purpose is to decide, upon the evidence of both sides, whether the confession should be admitted.
Confessions — Retracted or Repudiated — Evidential Value
A trial court should accept any confession which has been retracted or repudiated with caution, and must before founding a conviction on such a confession be fully satisfied in all the circumstances of the case that the confession is true. Corroboration is not necessary in law and the court may act on a confession alone if it is fully satisfied after considering all the material points and surrounding circumstances that the confession cannot but be true.
Confessions — Implicating Co-Accused — Evidential Value
If a statement amounts to a confession and it implicates a co-accused, it may in a joint trial be taken into consideration against the co-accused. It is however evidence of the weakest kind and can only be used as lending assurance to other evidence already constituting a substantial case against the co-accused.
Prior Threats — Relevance and Corroborative Value
Evidence of previous threats is relevant and, as such evidence shows an expression of intention, it goes beyond mere motive and tends to connect the accused person with the killing. Where threats are proximate in time to the offence, they may corroborate a confession.
Joint Offenders — Common Intention — Section 20 Penal Code Act
When two or more persons form a common intention to prosecute an unlawful purpose in conjunction with one another, and in the prosecution of that purpose an offence is committed of such a nature that its commission was a probable consequence of the prosecution of that purpose, each of them is deemed to have committed the offence. Common intention may be inferred from the presence of the accused persons, their actions, and the omission of any of them to dissociate himself from the assault. It is not necessary that there should have been any concerted agreement prior to the attack.

Legislation cited (11)

Cases cited (43)

  • Woolmington v DPP [1935] AC 462
  • Okethi Okale and Others v Republic [1965] EA 555
  • Miller v Minister of Pensions [1947] 2 All ER 372
  • Abdu Ngobi v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1991)
  • Gusambizi s/o Wesonge v Republic [1948] 15 EACA 65
  • R v Tubere s/o Ochieng [1945] EACA 63
  • Uganda v John Ochen [1992-93] HCB
  • Uganda vs. Adonia Zoreka & No. 7770 DC Kikwemba Criminal case 103/87
  • Ekadeho s/o Lomuli v R [1959] EA 168
  • Mwathi v Republic [2007] 2 EA 334
  • Amos Binuge and Others v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 23 of 1989)
  • Festo Androa Asenua and Another v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1998)
  • Andrew Walusimbi and Others v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 28 of 1992)
  • Kenyarithi s/o Mwangi v R [1956] 23 EACA 422
  • Mumbere Julius v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 15 of 2014)
  • CPL Wasswa and another Vs. Uganda (supra)
  • Tuwamoi v Uganda [1967] EA 84
  • Matovu Musa Kassim v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 27 of 2002)
  • Areet Sam v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 20 of 2005)
  • Sewankambo Francis and 20 Others v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 33 of 2001)
  • Anyangu v R (1968) EA 239
  • Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
  • Okecha s/o Olilia v R (1940) 7 EACA 74
  • Waibi and Another v Uganda (1968) EA 228
  • Chemonges Fred v Uganda (Court of Appeal Criminal Appeal No. 138 of 1999)
  • Henry Francis Rubingo v Uganda (Court of Appeal Criminal Appeal No. 18 of 1977)
  • Gopa s/o Gidamebanya v R (1953) 20 EACA 255
  • Andrea Obonyo and Others v R [1962] 1 EA 542
  • Opoya v Uganda [1967] 1 EA 752
  • Isingoma v Uganda [1986] 1 EA 155
  • No. 441 P.C. Ismail Kisegerwa & No. 8674 P.C. Bukombi, CA Cr. Appeal No. 6/1978
  • R v Okute [1941] 8 EACA 80
  • R -vs- Tabulayenka (supra)
  • Wanjiro Wamiro v R [1955] 22 EACA 521
  • R v Tabulayenka s/o Kirya and Others [1943] 10 EACA 51
  • Andrea Mutebi and Anor vs. Uganda Cr. App. 144/75 E.A.C.A
  • Ninsiima v Uganda (Court of Appeal Criminal Appeal No. 180 of 2010)
  • Kaddu Kavulu Lawrence v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 72 of 2018)
  • Ssekawoya Blasio v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 24 of 2014)
  • Rwalinda John v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 2015)
  • Mwesigye Richard and Another v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 246 of 2010)
  • Bukenya v Uganda (Court of Appeal Criminal Appeal No. 51 of 2007)
  • Sunday v Uganda (Court of Appeal Criminal Appeal No. 103 of 2006)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Uganda v Muhereza and 2 Others (HCT-01-CR-SC 223 of 2019) [2022] UGHC 147 (19 April 2022)
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.