Wakilii

Uganda v Nakibulle & Anor (Criminal Appeal No.0021 of 2008)

Court of Appeal · [2016] UGCA 66 · 2016 Appeal Allowed — Convictions Entered AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
State appeal against acquittal from High Court in a murder trial
Decision
Acquittals set aside; convictions of murder entered; respondents to be arrested and produced before the High Court for sentencing

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 of Appeal allowed the State's appeal against acquittal of two accused for murder. It held the trial Judge erred in finding participation unproven. The 2nd respondent's charge and caution statement, in which he admitted holding the victim's legs while others strangled him, amounted to an unequivocal confession; that he arrived after strangulation began or merely held the legs was immaterial, as he joined the unlawful act and helped dispose of the body, evidencing common intention. Circumstantial evidence corroborated the confession and, as accomplice evidence, lent assurance to evidence implicating the 1st respondent, who lured and last accompanied the deceased. The acquittals were set aside and convictions of murder entered.

Outcome

Acquittals set aside; convictions of murder entered; respondents to be arrested and produced before the High Court for sentencing

Facts

The deceased, Matovu Jamada, was found dead in a bush at Biharwe on 25 May 2006, his body stuffed in a sack, hands tied, and a rope around his neck. On 23 May 2006 the 1st respondent arranged for a boda-boda rider (PW2) to fetch the deceased and paid for the transport through a pump attendant (PW1); she then moved with the deceased towards her home, after which he was not seen alive again. The 2nd respondent's sister (PW10) testified he told her of a plot to kill someone and later that it had been carried out. In a charge and caution statement, the 2nd respondent admitted going to the 1st respondent's home, finding a man being strangled with a rope around his neck, and holding the man's legs as he was 'kicking to die.' The 2nd respondent led police to the spot where the body was recovered, about 8-10 miles away. The post-mortem attributed death to strangulation. The trial Judge acquitted the accused, finding participation unproven.

Issues

  1. Whether the trial Judge erred in considering the defence evidence in isolation of the prosecution evidence.
  2. Whether the prosecution proved participation and common intention of the respondents in the murder.
  3. Whether the 2nd respondent's charge and caution statement amounted to a confession usable against him and his co-accused.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • Acquittal of both respondents set aside.
  • Conviction of murder contrary to Sections 188 and 189 of the Penal Code Act entered against both respondents.
  • Immediate arrest of both respondents ordered and a warrant of arrest to be issued and published in print media within 14 days.
  • Upon arrest, respondents to be produced before a Judge of the High Court at Mbarara or the High Court Criminal Division Kampala for sentencing.

Rules and key headnotes

Homicide — Participation — Common Intention — Joining an ongoing unlawful act
A person who joins others in the perpetration of an unlawful act, having noticed what they are doing, shares in their common intention; it is immaterial that he found them already in the act or played a minor role, and he would only be exonerated had he disassociated himself and left the scene.
Common Intention — Inference — No pre-agreed plan required
Unlawful common intention does not require a pre-agreed plan; it may be inferred from the presence of the accused, their conduct, and the omission of any of them to disassociate from the assault.
Confessions — Charge and caution statement — Unequivocal admission of participation
A charge and caution statement in which the maker describes participating in strangling a still-living victim and holding his legs amounts to an unequivocal admission of participation in the offence, notwithstanding that he arrived after the act commenced.
Confessions — Effect against co-accused in joint trial
A confession implicating a co-accused in a joint trial may be taken into consideration against that co-accused, but being accomplice evidence of the weakest kind it can only be used to lend assurance to other evidence against the co-accused.
Circumstantial Evidence — Standard for conviction
For circumstantial evidence to sustain a conviction it must point irresistibly to the guilt of the accused, be incompatible with innocence and incapable of any other reasonable explanation, and the court must be sure there are no co-existing circumstances that weaken or destroy the inference of guilt.
Appeals — Duty of first appellate court
A first appellate court is required to re-appraise all the evidence adduced at trial and to draw its own inferences on all issues of law and fact.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (13)

  • Pandya v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1997)
  • Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
  • Janet Mureeba and 2 Others v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 13 of 2003)
  • R vs Kipkering Arap Koske and another [1949] 16 E.A.C.A 135
  • Simon Musoke vs R [1958] E.A 715
  • Teper vs R [1952] AC 480
  • Mohamed Mukasa and Another v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 27 of 1995)
  • R-V Tibulayenka & others (1943) 10 EACA 51
  • Wanjiro Wamiro vs R (1955) 22 EACA 521
  • PC Ismail Kisegerwa and Another v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 6 of 1978)
  • Anyango and others vs R [1968] E.A 239
  • Anyuma S/o Owora & another vs R [1953] 20 E.A.C.A 218
  • Gopa S/o Didamebanya & others vs R [1953] 20 E.A.CA 318

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Uganda Vs Nakibulle & Anor (Criminal Appeal No.0021 of 2008) [2016] UGCA 66 (22 December 2016)
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.