Wakilii

Uganda v Walakira & 2 Others (Criminal Session 230 of 2018)

High Court · [2024] UGHC 337 · 2024 Conviction Upheld — Life Imprisonment AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance criminal trial for murder
Decision
Walakira Deo acquitted and discharged; Kabuye Dennis and Makumbi Moses Peter Kisegu convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment

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 Kabuye Dennis and Makumbi Moses Peter Kisegu of the murder of one-and-a-half-year-old Mirembe Percy. The prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the child was lured away, brutally killed, and her body dismembered in a ritualistic sacrifice. The court acquitted Walakira Deo, finding no prima facie case against him. The two convicted accused were sentenced to life imprisonment, the court declining to impose the maximum penalty of death despite the heinous nature of the crime.

Outcome

Walakira Deo acquitted and discharged; Kabuye Dennis and Makumbi Moses Peter Kisegu convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment

Facts

On 23 October 2017, Kabuye Dennis arrived at the home of one-and-a-half-year-old Mirembe Percy in Kayugi village, Masaka District, on a red boxer motorcycle. He introduced himself as Walakira Godfrey, the children's uncle, gave the child a sweet, and rode away with her. Prosecution witness Sserunkuuma Robert saw Kabuye riding with the child on the road to Njumaga and, thirty-five minutes later, witnessed Kabuye hand the child to Makumbi Moses Peter Kisegu at Makumbi's compound. The child's body was discovered on 28 October 2017 in a eucalyptus forest near her home. The postmortem report showed her skull had been opened with brain tissue removed, both legs amputated, and finger digits missing. The cause of death was hemorrhagic shock. Makumbi was a traditional healer and had been implicated in a similar child sacrifice case in the same village years earlier. Both accused set up alibis claiming they were working in Makumbi's garden on the day in question, but Kabuye admitted taking fish to Bukumbula that afternoon, placing him on the road where witnesses saw him with the child.

Issues

  1. Whether death of a human being occurred.
  2. Whether the death was caused by an unlawful act.
  3. Whether the unlawful act was actuated by malice aforethought.
  4. Whether the accused persons caused the unlawful death.

Orders

  • Walakira Deo acquitted of murder and set free (no prima facie case established).
  • Kabuye Dennis convicted of murder contrary to sections 188 and 189 of the Penal Code Act.
  • Makumbi Moses Peter Kisegu convicted of murder contrary to sections 188 and 189 of the Penal Code Act.
  • Kabuye Dennis sentenced to life imprisonment.
  • Makumbi Moses Peter Kisegu sentenced to life imprisonment.
  • Right of appeal against conviction and sentence within fourteen days from date of judgment.

Rules and key headnotes

Murder — Essential Ingredients — Death of Human Being
Death of a human being may be proved by production of a postmortem report or evidence of witnesses who state they knew the deceased and attended the burial or saw the dead body, and a mother's identification of her child's mutilated body constitutes direct evidence of death.
Murder — Unlawful Killing — Presumption of Unlawfulness
A homicide will always be presumed to be unlawful unless it is committed in circumstances which make it accidental, excusable, or justified by law such as self-defence or when authorised by law.
Murder — Malice Aforethought — Inference from Circumstances
Malice aforethought may be inferred from the weapon used, the manner in which it is used, the number of injuries inflicted, the part of the body targeted, and the conduct of the accused before, during, and after the incident, and where a victim's skull is removed, limbs and fingers cut off, the intention to kill is manifest from the manner in which the atrocity was committed.
Identification Evidence — Recognition — No Need for Identification Parade
Where the identity of a suspect is not doubtful because the suspect is known to the witness, there is no need for an identification parade to be conducted as the instance becomes one of recognition as opposed to identification of a stranger.
Alibi — Destruction by Prosecution Evidence
It is not the duty of an accused person to prove his alibi; it is for the prosecution to destroy the alibi by placing the accused squarely at the scene of crime and proving that he is the one who committed the crime.
Circumstantial Evidence — Standard of Proof
Where a prosecution case depends solely on circumstantial evidence, the court must find that the inculpatory facts are incompatible with the innocence of the accused and incapable of explanation upon any reasonable hypothesis other than that of guilt, and the court must be sure there are no other co-existing circumstances which would weaken or destroy the inference of guilt.
Common Intention — Joint Offenders — Section 20 Penal Code Act
To make the doctrine of common intention applicable under section 20 of the Penal Code Act, it must be shown that the accused shared with the actual perpetrator a common intention to pursue a specific unlawful purpose which led to the commission of the offence, and common intention may be inferred from the presence of the accused persons, their actions, and the omission of any of them to disassociate himself from the assault.

Legislation cited (11)

Cases cited (29)

  • Ssekitoleko v Uganda (1967) EA 531
  • Miller v Minister of Pensions [1947] 2 All ER 372
  • Uganda v Hussein Hassan Agade (International Crimes Division Criminal Session No. 1 of 2010)
  • Gusambizi Wesonga & Others v R (1948) 15 EACA 63
  • Uganda v Aggrey Kiyingi & Others (Criminal Session No. 30 of 2006)
  • Nanyonjo Harriet & Another v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 24 of 2002)
  • R v Nedrick [1986] 1 WLR 1025
  • R v Hancock [1986] 2 All ER 357
  • Nandudu Grace & Another v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 4 of 2009)
  • Francis Coke v Uganda [1992-93] HCB 43
  • R v Tubere (1945) 12 EACA 63
  • Akol Patrick & Others vs. Uganda (supra)
  • Browne v Dunn (1893) 6 R 67
  • Rrs Mwvango so Munau |193013EICAL
  • R v Baskerville [1916] 2 KB 658
  • Twehamye Abdul v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 49 of 1999)
  • Uganda v Luliya (Chief Magistrate's Court Case No. 113 of 2011)
  • Uganda v Kato Kajubi Godfrey (Criminal Session No. 28 of 2012)
  • Isnael Kisegerwa & Another v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 6 of 1978)
  • Simon Musoke v R (1958) EA 715
  • Teper v R [1952] AC 480
  • Mugabe Stephen v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 0412 of 2009)
  • Namwanje Pauline v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 14 of 2009)
  • Bashasha Sharif v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 82 of 2018)
  • Kalisa Moses
  • Arinkindira Yustina versus Uganda
  • Susan Kigula & 417 Others v Attorney General (Supreme Court Appeal No. 03 of 2006)
  • Wasswa Stephen v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 102 of 2017)
  • Kato Kajubi versus Uganda

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Uganda v Walakira & 2 Others (Criminal Session 230 of 2018) [2024] UGHC 337 (16 April 2024)
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.