Wakilii

Uganda v Wamani and Another (Criminal Case 244 of 2023)

High Court · [2024] UGHC 40 · 2024 Conviction Entered (A1); Acquittal Entered (A2) AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance criminal trial for murder
Decision
First accused convicted of murder; second accused acquitted and presumably 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 the first accused was convicted of murder on the strength of the deceased's dying declaration heard by two independent witnesses, corroborated by evidence of a fight and postmortem findings of death from blunt force trauma to the neck. The second accused was acquitted as there was no evidence she formed a common intention to commit murder or participated in the killing, her caution to the parties not to break items indicating helplessness rather than complicity.

Outcome

First accused convicted of murder; second accused acquitted and presumably discharged

Facts

On 29 June 2023 at Kiswaza village, Kikuube District, the deceased Kesafari Brian, a goat herder employed by one Gideon, was killed during a fight with the first accused Wamani Denis (husband of the second accused Kusemererwa Mildred). Two neighbours heard the deceased scream 'Wamani Wamani don't kill me' and one heard sounds of objects hitting walls indicating a fight. The second accused was heard cautioning the fighters not to break her items in the bar. The next morning the deceased's body was found dumped at the trading centre. Postmortem examination revealed death from spinal cord injury and deep fractures to the neck bones caused by a blunt object. The accused persons opted to remain silent in their defence.

Issues

  1. Whether the death of Kesafari Brian occurred and was proved.
  2. Whether the death of the deceased was unlawfully caused.
  3. Whether the death of the deceased was caused with malice aforethought.
  4. Whether the accused persons directly or indirectly participated in causing the death of the deceased.
  5. Whether a dying declaration made by the deceased implicating the first accused was sufficient to ground a conviction in the absence of an eyewitness.
  6. Whether the second accused person could be held liable under the doctrine of common intention under s.20 of the Penal Code Act.

Orders

  • First accused (Wamani Denis) found guilty of murder and convicted.
  • Second accused (Kusemererwa Mildred) acquitted.

Rules and key headnotes

Evidence — Dying Declarations — Admissibility and Weight
A dying declaration made by a deceased person as to the cause of death is admissible under s.30 of the Evidence Act. While such evidence requires corroboration in practice, a court may convict on uncorroborated evidence of a dying declaration if circumstances exist showing the deceased was not mistaken.
Evidence — Dying Declarations — Repetition to Different Witnesses
Repetition of a dying declaration to different witnesses is not a guarantee of its accuracy as it may amount to mere consistency on the part of the deceased. The court must warn itself of the dangers of acting on the sole evidence of dying declarations.
Evidence — Dying Declarations — Sufficient Basis for Conviction
Where a dying declaration is corroborated by evidence of a fight immediately before death, knowledge of the parties by witnesses, and postmortem findings consistent with the circumstances described, and the defence offers no rebuttal, a conviction may be founded on the dying declaration alone.
Murder — Common Intention — Penal Code Act s.20
Under s.20 of the Penal Code Act, where two or more persons form a common intention to prosecute an unlawful purpose and an offence is committed in prosecution of that purpose, all are liable. However, liability requires proof that the accused formed the common intention and had power to disassociate from the unlawful acts but did not do so.
Murder — Common Intention — Mere Presence Insufficient
Mere presence at the scene of a crime, even by a spouse of the perpetrator, does not establish common intention to commit murder. Evidence of attempts to prevent damage to property or of helplessness does not demonstrate participation in or association with the unlawful killing.
Murder — Malice Aforethought — Inference from Injury to Vulnerable Body Part
Malice aforethought may be inferred where the deceased's body sustained deep fractures to the neck and spinal cord, vulnerable parts supporting the body and respiratory muscles. Such injury demonstrates intention to cause death or knowledge that the act would probably cause death.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (9)

  • Woolmington v DPP [1935] AC 462
  • Richard Oketcho v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 26 of 1975)
  • R v Israil Epuku s/o Achietu (1934) 1 EACA 166
  • R v Gusambuzi Wesonga (1948) 15 EACA 65
  • R v Tubere s/o Ochen [1954] EACA 63
  • Tindigwihura v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 9 of 1987)
  • Oyee George v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 159 of 2003)
  • Jasinga Akum v R [1954] 21 EACA 334
  • Mibulo Edward v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 1995)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Uganda v Wamani and Another (Criminal Case 244 of 2023) [2024] UGHC 40 (23 January 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.