Wakilii

Uganda v Tomusange Lasto and Others (Criminal Session Case No. 87 of 2014)

High Court · [2015] UGHC 37 · 2015 A1 Convicted; A3 Acquitted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance criminal trial for murder following not guilty plea by A1 and A3; A2 initially pleaded not guilty, subsequently changed plea to guilty, was convicted and sentenced
Decision
A1 convicted of murder; A3 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 A1 masterminded and participated in the ritual killing of his two-year-old son Ssebugwawo Angello. DNA evidence recovered from a bloodstained knife at A1's home matched the deceased's blood profile and corroborated A2's confession implicating A1 and A3. A1's conduct following the child's disappearance—indifference when told the child was missing, failure to assist in the search, and his presence with a smoking pipe when confronted—supported an inference of guilt. A1 convicted of murder. A3 acquitted due to insufficient evidence of participation.

Outcome

A1 convicted of murder; A3 acquitted and discharged

Facts

A1 Tomusange Lasto cohabited with Achan Christine and had a son, Ssebugwawo Angello. After their separation, the child lived with A1 at Kawala. On 23 August 2012, A2 Bulega Richard (A1's brother) picked the two-year-old child from A1's home at approximately 2:00pm. The child was reported missing on 24 August 2012. On 29 August 2012, a decapitated and decomposing body of a young child was discovered in a bush in Nsujjumpokwe village, Mpigi district. The body was missing the head, private parts, and left leg. A knife was recovered at the scene. On 30 August 2012, the deceased's mother identified the body. A2 confessed that he, A1, and A3 Ssebugwawo Fred (a traditional doctor) had planned the killing for ritual purposes at meetings in Mubende beginning in February 2012. A2 stated that spirits demanded blood sacrifices and that A1 agreed to sacrifice his son. DNA analysis showed that blood on a curved knife recovered from A1's home matched the deceased's blood profile. A1 and A3 were arrested. A2 pleaded guilty and was convicted and sentenced. A1 and A3 maintained not guilty pleas and were tried.

Issues

  1. Whether the death of Ssebugwawo Angello occurred.
  2. Whether the death was unlawful.
  3. Whether the death was caused with malice aforethought.
  4. Whether the accused persons A1 (Tomusange Lasto) and A3 (Ssebugwawo Fred) participated in the commission of the offence.

Orders

  • A1 Tomusange Lasto convicted of murder contrary to sections 188 and 189 of the Penal Code Act.
  • A3 Ssebugwawo Fred found NOT GUILTY and acquitted.
  • A3 ordered discharged forthwith unless held on other charges.

Rules and key headnotes

Confessions — Admissibility — Joint trial — Use against co-accused
Where more than one person are being tried jointly for the same offence and a confession made by one of those persons affecting himself or herself and some other of those persons is proved, the court may take into consideration such confession as against that other person as well as against the person who makes the confession.
Confessions — Retraction — Acceptance with caution — Corroboration
A trial court should accept any confession which has been retracted or repudiated or both retracted and repudiated with caution, and must before forming a conviction on such a confession be fully satisfied in all the circumstances of the case that the confession is true. Usually a court will only act on the confession if corroborated in some material particular by independent evidence accepted by the court, but corroboration is not necessary in law and the court may act on a confession alone if it is fully satisfied after considering all the material points and surrounding circumstances that the confession cannot but be true.
Accomplice evidence — Admissibility — Need for caution
Evidence of an accomplice is admissible and a conviction will not be illegal merely because it proceeds on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. However, there is no doubt that the uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice is admissible in law and courts must consider with caution the evidence of an accomplice, particularly where the accomplice is already serving sentence as he has nothing to lose and may tell lies in an attempt to save the lives of his co-accused that are on trial.
Murder — Malice aforethought — Inference from circumstances
In murder trials malice aforethought can be inferred from the weapon used (whether it is a lethal weapon or not), the manner in which it is used (whether it is used repeatedly or the number of injuries inflicted), the part of the body that is targeted or injured (whether or not it is a vulnerable part), and the conduct of the accused before, during and after the incident (whether there was impunity).
Murder — Malice aforethought — Natural consequence test
For a court to infer that an accused was killed with malice aforethought it must consider if death was a natural consequence of the act that caused the death, and if the accused foresaw death as a natural consequence of the act.
Circumstantial evidence — Standard for drawing inference of guilt
Before drawing the inference of guilt from circumstantial evidence, a court must make certain that there are no other co-existing circumstances which would weaken or destroy that inference.
Defences — Alibi — Burden of proof — Duty of prosecution to negative
When an accused sets up an alibi as a defence, he or she does not thereby assume any responsibility of proving it. The prosecution is under a duty to negative the alibi by evidence. The prosecution must produce evidence which places the accused squarely at the scene of crime.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (13)

  • Woolmington v DPP [1935] AC 462
  • Alfred Tajar v Uganda (EACA Criminal Appeal No. 167 of 1969)
  • Sarapio Tinkamalirwe v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 27 of 1989)
  • Andrew Asenga and Another v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1998)
  • R v Gasambiza s/o Musonga (1948) 15 EACA 65
  • Uganda v Aggrey Kiyingi and Others (Criminal Session Case No. 30 of 2006)
  • A. Kittereza (1945) 12 EACA 64
  • Akol Patrick and Others v Uganda [2006] HCB (vol. 1) 6
  • Nanyonjo Harriet and Another v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 24 of 2002)
  • Rwakenya and Others v Uganda [1972] EA 549
  • The King v Watts
  • Uganda v George Wilson Siti Biyay (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 37 of 1994)
  • Tomwabazi v Uganda [1967] EA 144

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Uganda v Tomusange Lasto and Others (Criminal Session Case No. 87 of 2014) [2015] UGHC 37 (23 March 2015)
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.