Wakilii

Uganda v Ndihoma and 2 Others (HCT-00-CR-SC 195 of 2019)

High Court · [2023] UGHCCRD 171 · 2023 Conviction Entered AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance criminal trial for murder
Decision
Accused convicted on both counts of murder

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 beyond reasonable doubt that the accused murdered two women by strangulation with self-locking fasteners tied tightly around their necks. The deaths were unlawful homicides committed with malice aforethought. Although the evidence was circumstantial, it pointed irresistibly to the accused's guilt: the victims were last seen entering his house, their bodies were found locked inside his residence, and he fled to the airport immediately after. The accused was convicted on both counts of murder.

Outcome

Accused convicted on both counts of murder

Facts

On 4 January 2019, two Congolese women, Njiba Hilda Mukendi and Sifa Nadkis, visited the accused at his rented house in Kakeeka zone, Rubaga division, Kampala. The accused, also Congolese, was seen entering the house with both women. Loud Congolese music played continuously from the house. When the security guard attempted to intervene and cut electricity, the music continued. After three days, a foul smell emanated from the locked house. Police broke in and found the two women dead, with self-locking black fasteners tied tightly around their necks, wrists and ankles. Both bodies were decomposing and covered in black polythene. Post-mortems showed both died of asphyxia following strangulation. The accused had fled to the airport, telling the deceased's family he was returning to Congo. He was arrested at Entebbe airport and led police to the crime scene. Personal effects of one victim were found in the house.

Issues

  1. Whether the two deceased persons died.
  2. Whether the deaths were caused unlawfully and with malice aforethought.
  3. Whether the accused participated in the commission of the murders.

Orders

  • Accused found guilty on both counts of murder contrary to sections 188 and 189 of the Penal Code Act.
  • Accused convicted on both counts.

Rules and key headnotes

Murder — Elements — Burden and Standard of Proof
In a prosecution for murder, the burden of proof rests with the prosecution and never shifts. The standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution must prove four elements: that there was a death, that the death was caused unlawfully, that it was caused with malice aforethought, and that the accused participated in the killing.
Murder — Malice Aforethought — Proof by Inference
Malice aforethought is not easily proved by direct evidence as intention resides in the mind. It may be inferred from the type of weapon used, the nature of injuries inflicted, the part of the body targeted, and the conduct of the perpetrator before and after the attack. Tightly tying a fastener around the neck, the only passage for air, demonstrates an intention to cause death as it is the only likely and foreseeable result of such an act.
Homicide — Presumption of Unlawfulness
All homicides are presumed to be unlawful unless authorised by law or proved to have been accidental or excusable.
Circumstantial Evidence — Test for Conviction
For circumstantial evidence to sustain a conviction in a criminal case, it must point irresistibly to the guilt of the accused. The inculpatory facts must be incompatible with the innocence of the accused and incapable of explanation on any other reasonable hypothesis than that of guilt. Courts must narrowly examine circumstantial evidence to ensure no co-existing circumstances weaken or destroy the inference of guilt.
Circumstantial Evidence — Proof of Participation
Where an accused is seen entering premises with the deceased persons, the deceased are found dead inside those premises which are the accused's residence, the accused flees immediately after the killings, and no other person is shown to have been present, the cumulative circumstantial evidence is capable of only one reasonable explanation: that the accused participated in the killings.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (8)

  • Okethi Okale v R (1965) EA 555
  • Kamesere Moses v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 8 of 1997)
  • Gusambizi s/o Wesonga [1948] 15 EACA 63
  • Amis Katalikawe and 2 Others v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 1994)
  • Magidu Musisi v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 1998)
  • Mureeba Janet and Others v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 13 of 2003)
  • R v Kipkering Arap Koske and Another (1949) 16 EACA 135
  • Simon Musoke v R (1958) EA 715

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Uganda v Ndihoma and 2 Others (HCT-00-CR-SC 195 of 2019) [2023] UGHCCRD 171 (13 April 2023)
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.