Wakilii

Uganda vs Okello Lazaro alia Okalebo and 2 others (Criminal Session 78 of 2018)

High Court · [2022] UGHC 90 · 2022 Conviction — Life Imprisonment AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance criminal trial for murder
Decision
All three accused 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 court convicted all three accused of murder under sections 188 and 189 of the Penal Code Act, finding the death of the juvenile deceased was unlawful, caused with malice aforethought through ritual murder evidenced by severe mutilation, and that the accused participated in the killing. The court relied on circumstantial evidence that the deceased went to the accused persons' home on invitation by their daughter and never returned, that the accused fled immediately thereafter, and that grave inconsistencies in their alibi destroyed their defence.

Outcome

All three accused convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment

Facts

On 6 September 2017, Acam Salume, a juvenile, was collected from her home by Akello Joyce Mary (A3, juvenile daughter of A1 and A2) who sought permission from the deceased's mother for the visit. The deceased went with A3 to A1's and A2's home less than one kilometre away and was seen there until late evening. That night and the next day, the deceased's parents found the accused persons' home locked and abandoned. On 8 September 2017, the deceased's body was found in a garden near her father's home. The body showed severe mutilation: face skinned, eyes gorged out, mouth cut, chest opened with heart removed, finger nails plucked, and burns from hot water. The body was covered with grass. Post-mortem established cause of death as severe haemorrhage. The accused persons disappeared immediately and were arrested in January 2018 in Amuria after fleeing through Mayuge and Abim. A1 had previously been arrested for a similar ritual murder in 2014 but was acquitted due to witness non-appearance.

Issues

  1. Whether the deceased Acam Salume died.
  2. Whether the death of the deceased was unlawful.
  3. Whether the death of the deceased was caused with malice aforethought.
  4. Whether the accused persons participated in causing the death of the deceased.
  5. Whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of circumstantial evidence.

Orders

  • Accused Okello Lazaro Alia Okalebo convicted of murder contrary to sections 188 and 189 of the Penal Code Act.
  • Accused Akello Joyce Mary (adult) convicted of murder contrary to sections 188 and 189 of the Penal Code Act.
  • Accused Akello Joyce Mary (juvenile) convicted of murder contrary to sections 188 and 189 of the Penal Code Act.
  • Each accused sentenced to life imprisonment.
  • Convicts advised of right of appeal within fourteen days of sentence.

Rules and key headnotes

Murder — Elements of the Offence — Proof of Death
The fact of death may be proved by production of a post-mortem report or evidence of witnesses at the burial. Where a post-mortem report establishes death and identifies the deceased, the first ingredient of murder is proved to the required standard.
Murder — Unlawful Death — Presumption
Any homicide is presumed to have been caused unlawfully unless it was accidental or authorized by law. Where the deceased's body shows systematic mutilation including removal of eyes, heart, skinning of face, and deep cuts incompatible with lawful death or accident, the death is unlawful even without testimony from the post-mortem doctor.
Murder — Malice Aforethought — Ritual Murder and Child Sacrifice
Malice aforethought is proved where the manner of killing was brutal, bearing hallmarks of ritual murder and child sacrifice, involving systematic mutilation of vulnerable body parts, removal of vital organs, and violence that may be motivated by belief in religious or commercial gains. The court must consider the type of weapon, nature of injuries, part of body affected, and conduct before and after the attack.
Circumstantial Evidence — Standard of Proof
Where the prosecution case depends solely on circumstantial evidence, the court must find that the exculpatory facts are incompatible with the innocence of the accused and incapable of explanation upon any other reasonable hypothesis than that of guilt. Such evidence must point to only one conclusion: that the offence was committed and that it was the accused who committed it. The circumstances must form a complete and unbroken chain of evidence.
Circumstantial Evidence — Flight from Crime Scene
The flight or fleeing from the vicinity of the crime is most times inconsistent with innocence of an accused person. Where accused persons disappear immediately after the deceased died and before the body was found, and continue to change residence through multiple locations without seeking police protection in their local area, such conduct is consistent with guilt rather than innocence.
Credibility of Witnesses — Inconsistencies and Contradictions
Grave inconsistencies and contradictions unless satisfactorily explained will usually result in the evidence of a witness being rejected. Minor inconsistencies unless they point to deliberate untruthfulness will be ignored. The gravity of contradiction depends on the centrality of the matter to determination of key issues in the case.
Sentencing — Ritual Murder — Life Imprisonment
In ritual murder cases involving child sacrifice where a juvenile victim's body was viciously mutilated through removal of vital organs, the court may impose life imprisonment as a deterrent sentence considering the level of violence involved and rampant incidents of such nature, even for first offenders who express no remorse. The maximum sentence of death may be mitigated to life imprisonment in exercise of judicial leniency.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (16)

  • Woolmington v DPP [1935] AC 462
  • Ssekitoleko v Uganda [1967] EA 531
  • Miller v Minister of Pensions [1947] 2 All ER 372
  • Uganda v Okello [1992-93] HCB 68
  • R v Gusambuzi s/o Wesonga (1948) 15 EACA 65
  • R v Tubere s/o Ochen (1945) 12 EACA 63
  • Byaruhanga Fodori v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 18 of 2002)
  • Tindigwihura Mbahe v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 9 of 1987)
  • Uganda v Ajionzi and Others [2020] UGHCKD 4
  • Abuja Tajudeen Iliyasu Vs The State SC 241 of 2013
  • Alfred Tajar v Uganda (EACA Criminal Appeal No. 167 of 1969)
  • Uganda v F Ssembatya and Another [1974] HCB 278
  • Sarapio Tinkamalirwe v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 27 of 1989)
  • Twinomugisha Alex and 2 Others v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 35 of 2002)
  • Uganda v Abdallah Nasir [1982] HCB
  • Kato Kajubi v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 20 of 2014)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Uganda vs Okello Lazaro alia Okalebo and 2 others (Criminal Session 78 of 2018) [2022] UGHC 90 (6 October 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.