Wakilii

Uganda v Ntomi (Criminal Session Case 162 of 1991)

High Court · [1991] UGHC 26 · 1991 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 of murder and sentenced to death

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 Ntomi Wilson of murder. The court held that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused killed the deceased Selegio Isingoma with a spear on 16 April 1990. The dying declaration of the deceased identifying the accused as his assailant was admissible and credible. The accused's confessional statement recorded by an Assistant Inspector of Police was voluntary and corroborated the dying declaration. The alibi defence was destroyed. Malice aforethought was inferred from the use of a lethal weapon on a vulnerable part of the body and the accused's intent to revenge. The defences of provocation, self-defence, and intoxication were not available. Death sentence imposed.

Outcome

Accused convicted of murder and sentenced to death

Facts

On 16 April 1990 at around 8.00 p.m. at Rubona Mukarahizira village, the deceased Selegio Isingoma returned to a trading centre bar yelling that Tom had speared him. He had a stab wound on the stomach with intestines protruding. He fell in the bar owned by PW2 and told PW1 and PW2 that the accused Ntomi Wilson (known as Tom) had stabbed him. The deceased died at approximately 9.00 p.m. from shock due to internal bleeding. The accused was arrested at the Gombolola Headquarters. A postmortem confirmed a stab wound on the abdomen and cause of death as internal bleeding. Police recovered a spear from the accused's father's house which the accused admitted was his. The accused made a confessional statement to Assistant Inspector Balinda admitting he killed the deceased in revenge for an earlier attack in January 1990 when the deceased allegedly cut him on the head. The accused claimed he ambushed the deceased at night with a spear and stabbed him once as he left the bar.

Issues

  1. Whether the deceased Selegio Isingoma is dead.
  2. Whether it was the accused who caused the death of the deceased.
  3. Whether there was malice aforethought as stipulated under section 186 of the Penal Code.
  4. Whether the dying declaration of the deceased was admissible.
  5. Whether the confessional statement made by the accused to the police officer was voluntary.
  6. Whether the alibi raised by the accused person was established.
  7. Whether any defences including provocation, self-defence, or intoxication were available to the accused.

Orders

  • The accused person found guilty and convicted of murder contrary to sections 183 and 184 of the Penal Code Act.
  • Sentence: The accused sentenced to death in the manner authorised by law.

Rules and key headnotes

Evidence — Dying Declaration — Admissibility
A dying declaration is admissible in evidence if the deceased was conscious of being in a dying state at the time of making it and was sensible of his awful situation, even though he did not express any apprehension of danger and death did not ensue until a considerable time after the declaration was made.
Evidence — Dying Declaration — Weight — Identification at Night
Caution must be exercised in the reception of evidence of a dying declaration, particularly as to identification when the attack has taken place at night, but it is not unsafe to base a conviction on a dying declaration if other evidence including circumstantial evidence shows that the deceased could not have been mistaken in identifying the assailant.
Evidence — Confessional Statements — Admissibility
No confession made by any person whilst in the custody of a police officer shall be proved against such person unless made in the immediate presence of a police officer of or above the rank of Assistant Inspector, and a confession is irrelevant if the making appears to the court to have been caused by any violence, force, threat, inducement or promise calculated to cause an untrue confession.
Evidence — Discovery of Facts — Admissibility Under Section 29(a)
Evidence of the recovery of an item by police where the accused led the police to the location is admissible under section 29(a) of the Evidence Amendment Decree as information leading to discovery of facts.
Criminal Law — Murder — Malice Aforethought — Inference from Weapon and Injury
Malice aforethought flows readily from the type of instrument used in killing and the part of the body that is injured. The use of a lethal weapon such as a spear on a vulnerable part of the body such as the stomach evidences the intention to cause death.
Criminal Law — Defences — Provocation — Cooling Time
The defence of provocation under section 187 of the Penal Code is available only where the killing was done in the heat of passion after sudden provocation before there was time to cool. Where a killing occurs three months after an alleged provocation, the defence is not available.
Criminal Law — Alibi — Onus of Proof
An accused person who raises an alibi as a defence does not assume the burden to disprove it. The onus lies on the prosecution to destroy the alibi by placing the accused at the scene of crime.

Legislation cited (12)

  • Penal Code s.183
  • Penal Code s.184
  • Penal Code s.186
  • Penal Code s.187
  • Penal Code s.182
  • Penal Code s.13
  • Penal Code s.9
  • Evidence Act s.30(a)
  • Evidence Act s.29(a)
  • Evidence Amendment Decree (Decree 25 of 1971) s.24(1)
  • Trial on Indictments Decree s.6A
  • Trial on Indictments Decree s.97

Cases cited (15)

  • Sentongo v Sebugwawo (Criminal Appeal No. 123 of 1974)
  • Woolmington vs DPP 1935 AC p. 462
  • Paulo Omale v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 6 of 1977)
  • Taper v R 1952 AER P. 447
  • Simon Musoke vs R. 1958 EACA P. 715
  • Yowana Serwadda v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 11 of 1977)
  • R vs Johnson 1961 3 AER P. 989
  • Sekitoleko vs Uganda 1967 EA 531
  • Leonard Aniseth v Republic 1968 EA P. 206
  • Jasunga s/o Akunuru v R. 1954 21 EACA P. 331
  • R vs Said s/o Akumu v R. 1954 21 EACA P. 331
  • Njuguna s/o Etat 1954 21 EACA P. 578
  • Tajiri case EACA Cri. Appt No. 167/69
  • Ruheal Alphonse v R 1973 EA
  • Festo Shirabu s/o Musungu 1934 Vol. XXII P. 454

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Uganda v Ntomi (Criminal Session Case 162 of 1991) [1991] UGHC 26 (16 July 1991)
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.