Wakilii

Uganda v Natukunda & Another (Criminal Session 344 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 43 · 2025 Conviction Entered AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance criminal trial for murder in High Court
Decision
Both accused convicted of murder and sentenced to imprisonment

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

Held that the prosecution proved all ingredients of murder beyond reasonable doubt through postmortem evidence establishing unlawful death from severe burns, malice aforethought inferred from the extensive nature of burns, and the accused's participation established through dying declarations. The court found that dying declarations given independently to two witnesses were reliable where the deceased knew the accused as village mates, minimising risk of mistaken identity. Both accused persons convicted of murder and sentenced to imprisonment. Dying declarations may ground conviction where corroborated by circumstantial evidence placing accused in proximity to victim at time of attack.

Outcome

Both accused convicted of murder and sentenced to imprisonment

Facts

On 13 May 2022, Rukundo Judith left her home with a five-month-old baby after being taken by Tibebuza Ibra, the second accused, to work as a maid for Natukunda Jovulet, the first accused. All three came from the same village and knew each other. The three met at a market where Jovulet and Judith negotiated salary terms. According to the deceased's dying declarations given independently to her mother and a police detective, while travelling with both accused, Jovulet asked Judith to escort her to the bush to urinate. In the bush, the accused hit Judith on the head with a stone, doused her with petrol, set her on fire, and took her baby. Judith was found and taken to hospital where she told her mother and the detective what happened before dying on 29 May 2022 from severe extensive burns and severe sepsis.

Issues

  1. Whether the prosecution proved all ingredients of the offence of murder beyond reasonable doubt.
  2. Whether the death of Rukundo Judith was caused unlawfully.
  3. Whether the death was caused with malice aforethought.
  4. Whether the accused persons participated in causing the death of the deceased.
  5. Whether the dying declarations of the deceased were admissible and reliable as evidence against the accused.

Orders

  • Accused No. 1 Natukunda Jovulet convicted of murder.
  • Accused No. 2 Tibebuza Ibra convicted of murder.
  • Both accused sentenced to imprisonment for murder contrary to sections 171 and 172 of the Penal Code Act.

Rules and key headnotes

Evidence — Dying Declarations — Admissibility and Weight — Section 30(a) Evidence Act
A dying declaration made by the deceased as to the cause of death or circumstances of the transaction resulting in death is admissible as relevant evidence under section 30(a) of the Evidence Act regardless of whether the declarant was under expectation of death and can lead to conviction where reliable.
Evidence — Dying Declarations — Caution Required — Risk of Mistaken Identification
Dying declarations must be received with caution because the deceased cannot be cross-examined and may have stated inferences from facts occurring under circumstances of confusion and surprise, with particular caution required where attacks occur in darkness when identification is more difficult.
Evidence — Dying Declarations — Corroboration — Mistaken Identity
Where the deceased and accused were from the same village and knew each other well, and circumstantial evidence places the accused in proximity to the victim at the time of the attack, the possibility of mistaken identification is negligible and the dying declaration may be relied upon without further corroboration.
Criminal Law — Murder — Malice Aforethought — Inference from Nature of Injuries
Malice aforethought, being a mental element, can be established from the surrounding circumstances, the parts of the body injured, and the nature of the injuries, and may be inferred where a victim suffered extensive burns covering face, trunk, legs, and vagina resulting in death.
Criminal Law — Homicide — Presumption of Unlawfulness
Any homicide is presumed to have been caused unlawfully unless it was accidental or authorised by law.
Evidence — Circumstantial Evidence — Standard for Conviction
Where a case depends exclusively upon circumstantial evidence, the court must before deciding upon conviction find that the inculpatory facts are incompatible with the innocence of the accused and incapable of explanation upon any other reasonable hypothesis than that of guilt.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (14)

  • Nandudu Grace & Another v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 4 of 2009)
  • Miller v Minister of Pensions [1947] 1 All ER 372
  • Uganda v Monday Wilson (High Court Criminal Case No. 22 of 2017)
  • Uganda v Endrio & 3 Others (High Court Criminal Session No. 172 of 2016)
  • R v Gusambizi s/o Wesonga (1948) 15 EACA 65
  • Uganda v Bosco Okello [1992-93] HCB 68
  • Matovu Frank & Another v Uganda (Court of Appeal Criminal Appeal No. 111 of 2018)
  • Simmon Musoke v R (1958) EA 715
  • Mibulo Edward v Uganda (1995) UGSC 17
  • Tindigwihura Mbahe v Uganda (1987) UGSC 9
  • Wasaja Fred v Uganda (Court of Appeal Criminal Appeal No. 49 of 2011)
  • Befeho Iddi v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 15 of 2017)
  • Ndyomugenyi v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 57 of 2016)
  • Mpagi Godfrey v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 63 of 2015)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Uganda v Natukunda & Another (Criminal Session 344 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 43 (11 February 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.