Wakilii

Uganda v Murungi Kakyeyere (Criminal Session Case 229 of 2023)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 117 · 2025 Acquittal Entered AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance criminal trial arising from Kakumiro Criminal Case No. 39/2022
Decision
Accused acquitted and discharged of all charges

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

Accused acquitted of both murder and aggravated robbery. Court found prosecution relied entirely on circumstantial evidence that was concealed from police for approximately 12 months and only disclosed after arrests of other suspects, rendering it unsafe to rely upon. Sniffer dog evidence held insufficient as scene had been tampered with before dog introduction. Prosecution failed to prove accused's participation in either offence beyond reasonable doubt.

Outcome

Accused acquitted and discharged of all charges

Facts

The deceased Barigye Stephen, husband of the accused, planned to introduce a concubine Nuwasasira Juliet as a second wife in May 2021. On 1 May 2021, while returning from a cattle market where he had secured proceeds for the introduction ceremony, the deceased was waylaid by unknown assailants and fatally assaulted with multiple cut wounds to the head, upper limbs and chest. The prosecution alleged the accused, jilted by the deceased's plans, had approached various people including herdsmen to recruit them to waylay and assault the deceased. Evidence included alleged threats by the accused and tracking by a police sniffer dog that led from the deceased's body to the accused's home. The accused was arrested approximately one year after the murder, following the arrest and subsequent release of three other suspects. The accused exercised her right to remain silent at trial.

Issues

  1. Whether the death of Barigye Stephen was unlawfully caused.
  2. Whether the death was caused with malice aforethought.
  3. Whether the accused participated in the murder of the deceased.
  4. Whether the prosecution proved theft of property belonging to the deceased.
  5. Whether the accused participated in the alleged aggravated robbery.

Orders

  • Accused found not guilty of murder (Count I) and acquitted accordingly.
  • Accused found not guilty of aggravated robbery (Count II) and acquitted.
  • Accused discharged of the entire case.

Rules and key headnotes

Burden of Proof — Prosecution Must Prove Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt
In criminal cases the burden of proof rests with the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and this burden does not shift to the accused except in exceptional statutory cases. A conviction must be based on the strength of the prosecution case and not on the weakness of the defence.
Murder — Essential Ingredients to be Proved
To secure a conviction for murder the prosecution must prove: (i) death of the person named in the indictment; (ii) death was unlawfully caused; (iii) death was caused with malice aforethought; and (iv) the accused participated in the commission of the offence or was responsible for the death of the deceased.
Malice Aforethought — Knowledge that Act Will Result in Death
Malice aforethought is established where there is intentional killing of a human being or knowledge that the act or omission will result in death. The infliction of extensive deep cut wounds on vulnerable parts of the body such as the head demonstrates knowledge that such injuries would cause death.
Circumstantial Evidence — Requirements for Safe Conviction
Circumstantial evidence must be narrowly examined because it may be fabricated to cast suspicion on another. Before drawing an inference of guilt, the court must be sure there are no other co-existing circumstances that would weaken or destroy the inference. A case based on circumstantial evidence is only as strong as its weakest link, and the circumstances must produce moral certainty to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt.
Circumstantial Evidence — Delayed Disclosure of Material Evidence
Where vital circumstantial evidence regarding threats to the deceased was known to family members but concealed from police and local authorities for approximately 12 months, only to be disclosed after the arrest of other suspects, it is extremely unsafe to rely on such evidence as it has a likelihood of having been fabricated to cast suspicion on the accused.
Sniffer Dog Evidence — Admissibility and Weight
Tracker dog evidence should be admitted with caution and treated with great care as it is obviously fallible. Circumstances relating to the actual trailing must be demonstrated, preservation of the scene is crucial, and the trail must not have become stale. Tracking dog evidence is not sufficient by itself to convict a criminal defendant and requires corroborating evidence identifying the defendant as the perpetrator of the crime.
Sniffer Dog Evidence — Scene Contamination
Where a crime scene has been tampered with by a crowd of people moving between the scene and the accused's home before the introduction of the sniffer dog, and where the dog traced scent to the accused's house but did not settle on the accused when she was present at the scene, such evidence cannot form a basis for conviction and is at best worthless.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (14)

  • Woolmington v DPP [1935] AC 462
  • Oketh Okale v R [1965] EA 555
  • Uganda v Oloya s/o Yovan Oweka [1977] HCB 6
  • Uganda v Nkojo Solomon (H.C. Criminal Session No. 036 of 2016)
  • Gusambuzi s/o Wesonga [1948] 15 EACA 65
  • Uganda v Okello [1992-1993] HCB 68
  • Mugao & Anor v R [1972] 1 EA 543
  • Amisi Dhatemwa alias Waibi v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 023 of 1977)
  • Teper v R [1952] AC 480
  • Omondi & Anor v R [1967] EA 802
  • Wilson Kyakurugaha v Uganda (Court of Appeal Criminal Appeal No. 51 of 2014)
  • The state of Washington v Allen B. Loucks 98 Wn.2d 563 [Wash.1983]
  • R v Manilal Purohit [1949] 9 EACA 58
  • Uganda v Aryampa Jackson & Ors (Masindi H.C. Criminal Session No. 166 of 2012)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Uganda v Murungi Kakyeyere (Criminal Session Case 229 of 2023) [2025] UGHC 117 (31 January 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.