Wakilii

Uganda v Nahabwe alias Murema and 6 Others (HCT-01-CR-SC 4 of 2010)

High Court · [2012] UGHC 413 · 2012 Conviction Entered; Six Co-Accused Acquitted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal trial for two counts of murder before the High Court
Decision
Nahabwe Livingstone convicted on two counts of murder; six co-accused acquitted and ordered to be set free unless lawfully held on other 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

The court held that only Nahabwe Livingstone was guilty of both counts of murder on the basis of his confession statement corroborated by circumstantial evidence. The confession statement could not be used as substantial evidence against the co-accused and the circumstantial evidence adduced by the prosecution was insufficient to prove their participation beyond reasonable doubt. The other six accused (Tamwesigire Peninnah, Orishaba Love, Nuwamanya Grace, Byamugisha Silverio, Turyomurugyendo Willy, and Muhumuza Ben) were acquitted.

Outcome

Nahabwe Livingstone convicted on two counts of murder; six co-accused acquitted and ordered to be set free unless lawfully held on other charges

Facts

On 10 April 2009 at Kamusenene village, Kamwenge District, Beshobeho Amos and Kashaija Francis were found dead in Beshobeho's house, both strangled. Beshobeho had multiple conflicts: domestic disputes with his wife Tamwesigire Peninnah (A2) and their children; a land dispute with his nephews Nahabwe Livingstone (A1) and Turyomurugyendo Willy (A6); and conflicts with a neighbor Kashaija Mephas. The second deceased Kashaija Francis was a friend of Beshobeho. Post mortem examination revealed both died from strangulation. An alarm was raised on the night of the killings and local residents gathered. The following day multiple accused were arrested. Nahabwe Livingstone confessed to the crime in his charge and caution statement and implicated his co-accused, stating the plot was hatched by Peninnah who wanted her husband eliminated to regain family property. Nahabwe claimed Kashaija Francis grabbed the deceased while he and a herdsman strangled Beshobeho, and that Kashaija Francis was killed because he sustained facial injuries during the struggle.

Issues

  1. Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that each of the seven accused persons participated in the murder of Beshobeho Amos.
  2. Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that each of the seven accused persons participated in the murder of Kashaija Francis.
  3. Whether the circumstantial evidence relied upon by the prosecution was sufficient to sustain a conviction against each accused person.
  4. Whether the confessional statement of Nahabwe Livingstone (A1) was admissible and could be relied upon to convict him.
  5. Whether the confessional statement of A1 could be used as substantial evidence against his co-accused.

Orders

  • Nahabwe Livingstone (A1) found guilty of murder on both counts and convicted.
  • Tamwesigire Peninnah (A2) found not guilty on both counts and acquitted.
  • Orishaba Love (A3) found not guilty on both counts and acquitted.
  • Nuwamanya Grace (A4) found not guilty on both counts and acquitted.
  • Byamugisha Silverio (A5) found not guilty on both counts and acquitted.
  • Turyomurugyendo Willy (A6) found not guilty on both counts and acquitted.
  • Muhumuza Ben (A7) found not guilty on both counts and acquitted.
  • A2 to A7 are to be set free unless either of them is lawfully held on other charges.

Rules and key headnotes

Evidence — Circumstantial Evidence — Standard of Proof in Criminal Cases
For circumstantial evidence to sustain a conviction in a criminal case, it must point irresistibly to the guilt of the accused, and the inculpatory facts must be incompatible with the innocence of the accused and incapable of explanation upon any other reasonable hypothesis than that of guilt.
Evidence — Confessions — Retracted or Repudiated Confessions
A trial court should accept any confession which has been retracted or repudiated with caution and must, before founding a conviction on such 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.
Evidence — Confessions — Use Against Co-Accused Persons
Where two or more accused persons are jointly tried for the same offence, a confession by one implicating another cannot be used as a basis for the conviction of that other. Under section 27 of the Evidence Act, it may only be used to supplement substantial evidence against the co-accused. Such evidence is of the weakest kind and can only be used as lending assurance to other evidence against the co-accused.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Common Intention — Proof
To prove common intention it is not necessary to prove a prior agreement between the assailants. It is sufficient if their intention can be inferred from the actions. Common intention may be inferred from the presence of the accused, his action and his omission to disassociate himself from the attack. It can develop in the course of events though it might not have been present from the start. Common intention cannot be inferred in the abstract; it must be derived from specific acts or conduct of the persons involved.
Evidence — Hearsay — Admissibility of Statements Made by Deceased to Third Parties
Statements made by a deceased person to third parties expressing fears that certain individuals wanted to kill him constitute inadmissible hearsay and ought not to be relied upon against those individuals. Such statements do not amount to dying declarations unless made in expectation of death on account of any injury inflicted or threat to life by the mentioned individuals.
Evidence — Witness Credibility — Assessment
Where a witness gives contradictory testimony on a material fact, such as the location where alleged threats were made, and the contradictory versions involve places far apart, the court is entitled to find that the witness was not entirely truthful and to disbelieve his evidence on that point.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Murder — Motive
While motive is generally irrelevant in establishing guilt, it becomes a relevant fact in determining intention in murder cases.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (17)

  • Teper v R [1952] AC 480
  • Simon Musoke v R [1958] E.A. 715
  • TWINOMUGISHA MBAHE VS UGANDA Criminal Appeal No. 9/87 (SC)
  • MURETHA JANET & 2 ORS VS UGANDA CR. APP. NO. 73/2003 (SC)
  • R v Kipkering Arap Koske and Another [1949] 16 EACA 135
  • ISANGA LAZARO & 2 ORS VS UGANDA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 19/99
  • Dafast Magara and Others v Uganda [1968] EA 667
  • Obracaku Ana v R [1960] E.A. 963
  • R v Tabularwanka and Another [1948] 10 EACA 691
  • Wamwiro Wamwiro v R [1955] 22 EACA 527
  • Tuwamoi v Uganda [1967] E.A. 84
  • ABEIT ALDY & ANOR VS UGANDA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 26/98 (SC)
  • NO. RA. 78064 CPL WASSWA & ANOR VS UGANDA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 40 AND 49 OF 1999
  • Ananga v R [1968] E.A. 239
  • ANDREW WALUSIMBI & 3 ORS VS UGANDA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 28/92
  • Uganda v Barikunda s/o Rwebanda [1985] HCB 72
  • Tinkamanyire and Another v Uganda [1988-90] HCB 5

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Uganda v Nahabwe alias Murema and 6 Others (HCT-01-CR-SC 4 of 2010) [2012] UGHC 413 (17 February 2012)
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.