Wakilii

Uganda v Sentongo and Another (HCT-00-CR-SC 227 of 2018)

High Court · [2022] UGHCCRD 139 · 2022 Conviction Entered AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance criminal trial in the High Court
Decision
Both accused convicted on two counts: murder and aggravated trafficking in persons

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 both accused of murder and aggravated trafficking in persons. The court found that the accused instructed a minor relative to transport a five-month-old baby from Wakiso to Mukono, where the child was killed through administration of herbs and ritual acts for purposes of exploitation. The prosecution proved all elements of both offences beyond reasonable doubt. Minor inconsistencies in the child witness's testimony did not undermine the core facts. The accused's alibi was rejected, and no evidence supported the alleged family grudge as motive for fabrication.

Outcome

Both accused convicted on two counts: murder and aggravated trafficking in persons

Facts

On 27 January 2018, Chelimo Susan left her five-month-old daughter, Swaira Nakaye, at home in Kiwologoma, Wakiso District, to collect mosquito nets. On return she found the baby missing. She was told the child had been taken by Nantongo Prossy, a minor relative who sometimes cared for the baby. Nantongo was instructed by her uncle, Sentongo Lawrence (first accused), to transport the baby to his home in Wabikokoma, Mukono District. The child was handed to Namuganza Deziranta (second accused), Sentongo's wife. Herbs were administered to the baby and she was placed on a spear, causing her death. The body was dumped in a guava plantation. Chelimo traced her way to Wabikokoma and inquired after the baby but was told she had not been seen. The next morning the baby's body was discovered. Both accused and Nantongo were arrested. Nantongo later testified for the prosecution. The accused denied the charges and raised alibi defences, claiming family grudges motivated false testimony.

Issues

  1. Whether the accused persons caused the unlawful death of Swaira Nakaye with malice aforethought.
  2. Whether the accused persons transferred Swaira Nakaye by means of abduction for purposes of exploitation contrary to the Prevention of Trafficking in Persons Act.
  3. Whether the evidence of the prosecution witness (PW1) was credible notwithstanding alleged inconsistencies and claimed family grudges.
  4. Whether the alibi defence raised by the accused persons displaced the prosecution case.

Orders

  • Both Sentongo Lawrence and Namuganza Deziranta found guilty of murder contrary to Sections 188 and 189 of the Penal Code Act.
  • Both Sentongo Lawrence and Namuganza Deziranta found guilty of aggravated trafficking in persons contrary to Section 3(1)(a) and 4(a)(j) of the Prevention of Trafficking in Persons Act 2009.
  • Both accused convicted on both counts.

Rules and key headnotes

Burden of Proof — Prosecution Must Prove Beyond Reasonable Doubt
In criminal cases the burden of proof lies throughout on the prosecution and does not shift to the accused except in certain statutory cases. The prosecution must prove each essential element of the offence to a standard beyond reasonable doubt.
Murder — Elements of the Offence
The elements of murder under Sections 188 and 189 of the Penal Code Act are: (i) death of a human being, (ii) which was caused unlawfully, (iii) with malice aforethought, and (iv) participation of the accused persons.
Malice Aforethought — Inference from Conduct and Circumstances
Malice aforethought is not easily proved by direct evidence but can be inferred from the type of weapon used, the nature of the injuries inflicted, the part of the body affected, and the conduct of the attacker.
Alibi Defence — Burden Remains on Prosecution
By setting up an alibi, an accused does not assume any duty of proving it. The onus remains on the prosecution to prove to the required standard that the accused was at the scene of the crime.
Witness Credibility — Assessment of Minor Inconsistencies
Minor inconsistencies in a witness's testimony do not warrant rejection of the evidence where the deciding factor is whether the contradictions are major and indicate deliberate lies. Gross or major inconsistencies that go to the root of the matter should lead to rejection of evidence, but discrepancies caused by trauma, youth, or lapse of time do not necessarily render testimony unreliable.
Corroboration — Use of Former Statements Under Section 156 of the Evidence Act
In order to corroborate the testimony of a witness, any former statement made by the witness relating to the same fact, at or about the time when the fact took place, or before any authority legally competent to investigate the fact, may be proved under Section 156 of the Evidence Act.
Aggravated Trafficking in Persons — Elements of the Offence
The elements of aggravated trafficking in persons under Section 3(1)(a) and 4(a)(j) of the Prevention of Trafficking in Persons Act 2009 are: (a) the victim was a child, (b) who was moved or transported from one place to another, (c) by means of abduction or deception, (d) for the purpose of exploitation (including use for human sacrifice, witchcraft or rituals), and (e) participation of the accused.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (5)

  • Okethi Okale v R (1965) EA 555
  • Gusambizi s/o Wesonga & others v R (1948) 15 EACA 63
  • Amisi Katalikawe & 2 others v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 1994)
  • Moses Bogere and Another v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 001 of 1997)
  • Shokatali Abdulla Dhalla v Sadrudin Meralli (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 32 of 1994)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Uganda v Sentongo and Another (HCT-00-CR-SC 227 of 2018) [2022] UGHCCRD 139 (1 May 2022)
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.