Wakilii

Uganda v No. 68816 PPC Elwelu (Criminal Session Case 132 of 2023)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 118 · 2025 Acquittal Entered AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance criminal trial arising from Hoima Criminal Case No. 0040/2021
Decision
Accused acquitted and discharged

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 accused police officer, charged with murder after discharging bullets during a violent crowd control operation in which the deceased was fatally injured, had not acted with malice aforethought. The court found that the accused genuinely and honestly believed his person, his firearm, and property were in immediate danger from a rowdy mob that manhandled him. The discharging of bullets into the air constituted reasonable defensive action in the unique circumstances. The death was excusable. The accused was acquitted of murder.

Outcome

Accused acquitted and discharged

Facts

On 13 March 2021, during COVID-19 curfew enforcement, the accused, a police constable, and his commanding officer Sergeant Oyoro attended a celebration party organised by an elected LC III Chairperson at Kikuba Village, Kikuube District. When police ordered closure of the music in compliance with curfew regulations, the crowd became violent, throwing stones, bricks, bottles, and sticks at the two officers and a DJ. Four men attacked the accused, one of whom manhandled him and attempted to seize his firearm. In the struggle and amid tear gas, the accused discharged two rounds into the air to disperse the crowd and protect himself, his weapon, and property. A stray bullet or bullet fragments struck Tumusiime Evelyne, causing a fracture to her fourth finger and lower jaw. She died of haemorrhagic shock while being transported to hospital. The accused remained at the station and was arrested at midnight.

Issues

  1. Whether the prosecution proved the elements of murder beyond reasonable doubt.
  2. Whether the accused acted with malice aforethought when discharging the firearm.
  3. Whether the accused's defence of self-defence and defence of property was established.

Orders

  • Accused found not guilty of the offence of murder.
  • Accused acquitted.

Rules and key headnotes

Murder — Malice Aforethought — Intention to Kill — Circumstances for Determination
To determine whether malice aforethought is proved, the court must examine the circumstances surrounding the case, including the nature and number of injuries inflicted, the part of the body injured, the type of weapon used, and the conduct of the accused before, during, and immediately after the injuries were inflicted.
Murder — Malice Aforethought — Accidental Discharge — Lack of Intent
Where an accused discharged bullets into the air to dispel a violent crowd that attacked him and the deceased was injured by stray bullet fragments, the accused's conduct after the incident and the circumstances demonstrate lack of intention to kill or knowledge that death would result. Malice aforethought is not established.
Self-Defence — Reasonable Force — Armed Officer Under Attack
A person attacked by a violent mob may inflict violence in self-defence if no more force is used than is reasonable to repel the attack. An accused relying on self-defence must have used reasonable force, and the court must consider the circumstances as the accused honestly and genuinely believed them to be.
Self-Defence — Defence of Property — Armed Officer — Discharge into Air
Where an armed police officer is manhandled by a crowd attempting to seize his firearm and discharges bullets into the air to protect himself, his weapon, and property at the scene, such action constitutes reasonable defensive force in the unique circumstances of the case. If death results accidentally, it is excusable.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (10)

  • Woolmington v DPP [1935] AC 462
  • Oketh Okale v R [1965] EA 555
  • Uganda v Oloya s/o Yovan Oweka [1977] HCB 6
  • Gusambuzi Wesonga v R [1948] 15 EACA 65
  • Mugao & Anor v R [1972] 1 EA 543
  • Tubere v R [1945] 12 EACA 63
  • Mbugua v R [2000] 1 EA 150
  • PC Ntegeka Ismail v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 123 of 2020)
  • Palmer v The Queen [1971] 1 All ER 1077
  • Backford v The Queen [1987] 3 All ER 425

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Uganda v No. 68816 PPC Elwelu (Criminal Session Case 132 of 2023) [2025] UGHC 118 (31 January 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.