Wakilii

Uganda v Nakiyingi Annet and Nakityo Brenda (Criminal Sessions Case 185 of 2025)

High Court · [2026] UGHC 497 · 2026 Conviction Entered (Murder); Acquittal and Alternative Conviction (Negligence) AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance criminal trial for murder before the High Court with assessors
Decision
Nakityo Brenda convicted of murder; Nakiyingi Annet acquitted of murder but convicted of causing death by negligence

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 Nakityo Brenda of murder, finding she forcefully inserted hard paper down the deceased child's airway, causing asphyxiation and death. The court applied the 'last seen person' doctrine and relied on circumstantial evidence, concluding Brenda was alone with the child when the fatal act occurred. The court acquitted Nakiyingi Annet of murder but convicted her of causing death by a rash or negligent act under Section 210 of the Penal Code Act for leaving cut paper pieces accessible to the child.

Outcome

Nakityo Brenda convicted of murder; Nakiyingi Annet acquitted of murder but convicted of causing death by negligence

Facts

On 5 March 2025, Genesis Kirabo Gold, a juvenile female, died at Abisom Clinic in Wakiso district. The child lived with her mother, Nakiyingi Annet (A1), and a relative, Nakityo Brenda (A2). On the morning of the incident, A1 went outside to cook porridge, leaving A2 and the child inside the house. A2 left the house to use the toilet and bathe, then returned inside before calling A1 to report the child had something stuck in her mouth. The child was taken to the clinic where a midwife extracted rolled hard papers and a toilet paper roll from the airway using forceps. The child was declared dead. Post-mortem examination confirmed death by asphyxia caused by physical obstruction of the airway. The papers matched pieces A1 had cut from boxes used to house chicks. A2 was the last person alone with the child before the obstruction was discovered.

Issues

  1. Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the death of Genesis Kirabo Gold was unlawful.
  2. Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the unlawful death was actuated by malice aforethought.
  3. Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused persons caused the unlawful death.
  4. Whether the accused persons acted with common intention under Section 20 of the Penal Code Act.
  5. Whether the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to sustain a conviction.
  6. Whether the doctrine of 'last seen person' applied to establish participation.

Orders

  • Nakityo Brenda convicted of murder contrary to sections 171 and 172 of the Penal Code Act.
  • Nakiyingi Annet acquitted of murder.
  • Nakiyingi Annet convicted of causing death by a rash or negligent act contrary to Section 210 of the Penal Code Act.

Rules and key headnotes

Murder — Proof of Malice Aforethought — Circumstantial Evidence
Malice aforethought is a question of fact to be determined from available evidence, including the nature of wounds inflicted, the part of the body injured, the type of weapon used, and the conduct of the accused immediately before and after the injuries causing death were inflicted.
Circumstantial Evidence — Sufficiency for Conviction
Circumstantial evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction provided the facts form a complete chain of causation pointing to the accused's guilt, there is no other explanation consistent with the innocence of the accused, and the chain of circumstances is firmly established.
Murder — Last Seen Doctrine — Presumption of Responsibility
The doctrine of 'last seen person' means the law presumes that the person last seen with the deceased bears full responsibility for his or her death, particularly where the person was in close proximity and had opportunity to commit the act.
Common Intention — Section 20 Penal Code Act — Joint Offenders
For two or more persons to be deemed joint offenders under Section 20 of the Penal Code Act, they must form a common intention to prosecute an unlawful purpose in conjunction with one another; a crime of opportunity committed by one person without prior agreement does not establish common intention.
Corroboration — Connecting Accused to Crime
Corroboration affects the accused by connecting or tending to connect him with the crime; it must be evidence which implicates him and confirms in some material particular not only that the crime has been committed but also that the defendant committed it.
Causing Death — Section 179 Penal Code Act — Intervening Medical Treatment
A person is deemed to have caused the death of another although his or her act is not the immediate or sole cause of death if he or she inflicts bodily injury in consequence of which that person undergoes surgical or medical treatment which causes death, provided the treatment was employed in good faith.
Causing Death by Negligence — Section 210 Penal Code Act — Rash or Negligent Act
Any person who by any rash or negligent act not amounting to manslaughter causes the death of another person is liable under Section 210 of the Penal Code Act; leaving dangerous objects accessible to a child in circumstances where the child could ingest them may constitute such a rash or negligent act.

Legislation cited (12)

Cases cited (10)

  • Woolmington v DPP (1935) AC 462
  • Miller v Minister of Pensions (1947) 2 All ER 372
  • Abdu Ngobi v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1991)
  • Mumbere v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 15 of 2014)
  • Nandudu Grace & Another v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 4 of 2009)
  • Francis Coke v Uganda [1992-93] HCB 43
  • Uganda v Hamidu Serunkuma (2001) UGHC 135
  • Nanyonjo Harriet and Another v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 24 of 2012)
  • Busingye Paul & Ampereza Lawrence v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 048 of 2022)
  • Uganda v George Wilson Simbwa (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 37 of 1995)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Uganda v Nakiyingi Annet and Nakityo Brenda (Criminal Sessions Case 185 of 2025) [2026] UGHC 497 (14 May 2026)
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.