Wakilii

Uganda v Tukundane (Criminal Session Case 372 of 2020)

High Court · [2023] UGHCCRD 133 · 2023 Conviction Entered AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance criminal trial in the High Court on a murder charge
Decision
Accused convicted 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

The accused was convicted of murder. The court found that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused stabbed the deceased in the neck with a knife causing death. The identification evidence was reliable despite the night-time setting because the witnesses knew the accused for several years, the area was well-lit by electric light, and they observed from close proximity. The dying declaration of the deceased, who cried out that Nick had stabbed him, was admissible under the Evidence Act and was corroborated by eyewitness testimony and medical evidence. The accused's defence that he acted in self-defence during a robbery was rejected as inconsistent and uncorroborated. Flight from the scene furnished additional corroboration of guilt.

Outcome

Accused convicted of murder

Facts

On 7 October 2018 at approximately 9:00 pm in Katwe-Katenda Zone, Makindye Division, Kampala, the deceased Akatukunda Victor was sitting with friends PW2 and PW3 on a toilet veranda in a well-lit area. The accused was seen peeping into a nearby shop. The deceased confronted him, warning that if anything was stolen they would be suspected. The accused became annoyed, shoved the deceased, and walked away. Shortly thereafter the accused returned with a friend and called the deceased aside. The accused stabbed the deceased in the neck area with a knife. A jet of blood shot from the wound. The deceased shouted that Nick had stabbed him. He bled profusely and was rushed to Nsambya Hospital where he was pronounced dead at 9:20 pm. A post-mortem showed a penetrating wound from the neck to the lungs. The accused fled and was arrested the following morning at about 5:00 am hiding in the LC I chairman's garden.

Issues

  1. Whether the death of Akatukunda Victor was proved.
  2. Whether the death was caused unlawfully.
  3. Whether the death was caused with malice aforethought.
  4. Whether the accused participated in the commission of the offence.
  5. Whether the identification evidence was reliable given that the incident occurred at night.
  6. Whether the dying declaration of the deceased was admissible and reliable.
  7. Whether PW2 was an accomplice whose evidence required corroboration.

Orders

  • Tukundane Nicholas found guilty of the offence of Murder contrary to sections 188 and 189 of the Penal Code Act.
  • Tukundane Nicholas convicted of murder.

Rules and key headnotes

Evidence — Identification Evidence — Night-Time Identification — Guidelines for Testing Quality
Where identification is made in difficult conditions such as at night, the court must exercise caution and warn itself to examine such evidence closely to avoid mistaken identity. The court must scrutinise the light conditions, the familiarity of the witness with the accused, the length of time spent observing the incident, and the distance from which observation was made.
Evidence — Dying Declarations — Admissibility and Weight — Section 30(a) Evidence Act
Under section 30(a) of the Evidence Act, statements by a deceased person as to the cause of death or circumstances of the transaction resulting in death are admissible as relevant facts regardless of whether the person was under expectation of death. Such evidence must be received with caution because it cannot be tested by cross-examination, but corroboration may render it safe to act upon.
Criminal Law — Malice Aforethought — Inference from Circumstances
Malice aforethought 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 perpetrator before and after the attack. A deep stabbing wound to the neck with a knife using great force supports an inference of malice aforethought.
Evidence — Accomplice Evidence — Definition of Accomplice
In a criminal trial, a witness is an accomplice if he participated as a principal or accessory in the commission of the offence which is the subject of the trial. A witness cannot be treated as an accomplice merely because he was present at the scene unless there is evidence that he participated directly or indirectly in the commission of the offence.
Criminal Law — Proof of Guilt — Flight as Corroboration
The conduct of an accused person in fleeing the scene and hiding after the commission of an offence furnishes corroboration of guilt. Such conduct is hardly the behaviour of an innocent person and is more consistent with the behaviour of a fugitive.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (12)

  • 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 & 2 Ors v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 1994)
  • Roria v R [1967] EA 583
  • Abdalla Nabulere and Ors v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1978)
  • Nassolo v Uganda [2003] EA 181
  • Mibulo Edward v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 1995)
  • Tindigwihura Mbahe v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 9 of 1987)
  • Okoth Okale and others v Republic [1965] EA 55
  • Tomas Omukono v Uganda [1978]
  • Uganda v George Wilson Simbwa (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 37 of 1995)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Uganda v Tukundane (Criminal Session Case 372 of 2020) [2023] UGHCCRD 133 (16 October 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.