High Court at Kabale Convicts Minors of Murder Based on Motive and Police Canine Tracking

Waboga David
6 days ago
6 min read

FACTS

The case concerns two minors, NN (A2) and TB (A3), who were charged with the murder of Kahwite Africano contrary to sections 171 and 172 of the Penal Code Act. Both accused were under the age of 18 at the time of the alleged offence.

The incident occurred during the night of 21–22 January 2025 at Kigugo Village, Buhara Sub-County, Kabale District. The deceased, who was a relative of the accused, was found dead in his home with visible signs of a violent struggle, including a swollen right hand, bruises on the forehead, ear, and cheek. A postmortem report later confirmed that he died of traumatic brain injury caused by a blunt object, leading to skull fracture and internal haemorrhage.

The killing was linked to a long-standing land dispute between the deceased and the accused minors’ father, Rashid Mwesigwa (A1). The deceased had purchased land from A1, who later demanded its return or additional payment of UGX 2 million. This dispute escalated into threats—some previously reported to police in October 2024 under CRB 046/2025 and CRB 045/2025, during which A1 was involved in an altercation with police that resulted in the loss of his leg. A1 himself had been charged with the same murder but was acquitted in a no-case-to-answer ruling on 23 October 2025 (HCT-11-CR-SC-0040-2025).

On 21 January 2025, several prosecution witnesses observed suspicious behaviour involving the accused minors:

PW1 (Julius Abe), a neighbour, testified that the deceased complained that NN and TB had threatened him over the disputed land.
PW2 (Winnie Rugwambuza) witnessed the minors approach the deceased while carrying a piece of timber. After PW2’s presence interrupted the confrontation, the accused openly remarked that she had “sabotaged their deal,” and the deceased later told her she had saved his life.

Following the discovery of the body the next morning, police investigations commenced. PW3 (Sgt. Atukwase Gad), a canine handler, introduced his dog “Charity” to the preserved crime scene. The dog picked a scent and tracked it directly to the bedroom shared by the accused minors at their home.

Their mother confirmed that the room belonged to NN and TB and that they had not slept at home that night.

PW4 (Det. Constable Ngobi David), the Scene of Crime Officer, documented the scene through photographs and sketches, confirming signs of a struggle and injuries consistent with blunt-force trauma.

PW5 (Det. Cpl. Gwintanda Paul) corroborated the background of prior threats against the deceased and recorded witness statements.

Both accused gave unsworn testimony, denying any involvement and asserting an alibi, claiming that they spent the night at a funeral vigil for one Anacleto, daughter of Nkwasa. A3 was arrested after the canine tracking led officers to the suspects’ room, and A2 was arrested shortly thereafter.

On 14 November 2025, the assessors unanimously recommended a conviction, finding that the prosecution had proved all essential ingredients of murder, including malice aforethought, through circumstantial, testimonial, and forensic evidence.

ISSUES (From the ingredients of the offence of Murder)

Whether the death of the deceased occurred.
Whether the death was unlawful.
Whether the death was caused with malice aforethought.
Whether the accused persons participated in causing the death (identification, presence, conduct).
Whether the defences (general denial & alibi) created a reasonable doubt.

The court applied the burden and standard of proof from Woolmington v DPP (1935) AC 462, Miller v Minister of Pensions (1947) 2 All ER 372, and Abdu Ngobi v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1991), emphasizing that the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt without shifting the burden.

SUBMISSIONS

Prosecution

The prosecution argued that the ingredients of murder were met through direct and circumstantial evidence. They highlighted:

Death and unlawful causation via the postmortem and scene photos.
Malice aforethought inferred from prior threats (proximate to the murder), the land grudge, the use of a blunt object, and the accused's statements to PW2 indicating intent.
Participation established by canine tracking, corroborated by the mother's statement that the accused were absent from home that night, and their failure to disprove motive or opportunity.
The alibi was weak and uncorroborated, outweighed by evidence placing them near the scene. They relied on sections 171-174 and 191 of the Penal Code Act, and precedents like Mumbere v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 15 of 2014) for inferring malice from circumstances (e.g., weapon used, conduct before/after).

Defence

The defense submitted a general denial and alibi, asserting:

The accused were at a funeral vigil and had no involvement.
Canine evidence was unreliable and insufficient for conviction alone.
No direct eyewitnesses saw the accused commit the act.
The prosecution's case relied on weak circumstantial links, failing to meet the beyond-reasonable-doubt standard.
As minors, any procedural lapses (e.g., in handling evidence or detention) should favor acquittal.

The accused gave unsworn testimony, focusing on their alibi and criticizing the reliance on the canine dog for arrests.

The trial complied with Article 28(1) of the Ugandan Constitution (right to a fair, speedy hearing) and the Children Act, Cap 59, given the timely disposal (offense in January 2025, judgment in November 2025) and handling of age verification issues for one accused.

COURT'S FINDINGS

The court convicted the accused, emphasizing three key findings based on a holistic evaluation of evidence under Abdu Ngobi v Uganda.

a) Burden & Standard of Proof

The Court relied on Woolmington v DPP and Miller v Minister of Pensions, affirming:

“Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond the shadow of a doubt… if evidence is so strong as to leave only a remote possibility… the case is proved.”

b) Malice Aforethought

The Court used Section 174 PCA, and reaffirmed the principles in Mumbere v Uganda and Nandudu Grace v Uganda, that malice may be inferred from circumstances.

The Judge emphasized the proximity of threats to the killing:

“The testimony of PW2 was to the effect that the threats in her plain view were made on May 21st… The following day the deceased was found dead. The death was not accidental.”

The court relied on Simbwa v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 023 of 2012) and Nanyonjo Harriet and Another v. Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 4 of 2002) for inferring intent from circumstances.

c) Participation (Identification & Circumstantial Evidence)

The canine evidence was considered supportive but not standalone:

“He showed the limits of his dog… accentuating its strengths, and its ability to pick just one scent.”

But this evidence was corroborated by:

PW2 seeing the accused threaten the deceased.
Their unexplained absence from home that night.
Their room being the scent destination.
Motive arising from the land dispute.

Canine Evidence and Corroboration:

The canine tracking was deemed supportive and corroborated by other evidence.

"The evidence of the canine dogs is supportive. It cannot stand alone to return a conviction... PW4 told court the mechanics of how this happens. He introduced his dog, Charity, to the room where the deceased’s body was found and it picked up the scent as the scene was well preserved. The dog tracked the scent to the room occupied by the accused at their home, then it sat down... This evidence was corroborated by the mother confirming they were not in the house that night."

The court noted the scene's preservation minimized errors, distinguishing from A1's acquittal in the related case.

Failure of Alibi Defense:

The alibi was rejected as it did not disprove opportunity or motive.

"The evidence of the accused persons did not reverse the uncontested evidence of motive, the evidence of the canine dog that put them at the scene of crime, after the canine dog led PW4 to their room... The circumstantial evidence on record, points to one conclusion, guilt. See Musoke v Regina, 1958 EA 715."

Applying Bogere & Anor v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 02 of 1997), the court weighed versions and found the prosecution's evidence stronger.

The court commended the canine handler's professionalism, the scene officer's detail, and the prosecution's timeliness.

The alibi failed all three tests:

Not showing they were absent from locus.
Did not eliminate opportunity.
Did not rebut prosecution’s account.

Holding

The court held that the prosecution proved all ingredients of murder beyond reasonable doubt. The accused were convicted as charged.

"The Prosecution has discharged its burden, to prove the ingredients of the offence of murder against the accused persons. I accordingly convict the accused persons AS CHARGED of the offence of murder."

KEY TAKEAWAYS

Circumstantial Evidence Can Sustain Murder Conviction
Where direct evidence is absent, motive + threats + proximity + canine tracking + unexplained absence can amount to proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Canine Evidence Is Admissible but Not Sufficient Alone
Courts will rely on it only when corroborated, but it remains a vital investigative tool.
Alibi Requires Cogent Proof
General denial without supporting evidence is insufficient—especially when prosecution places accused near the scene.
Proximity of Threats Supports Malice Aforethought
Threats close to the death strongly support premeditation.
Children in Conflict With the Law Must Be Handled Quickly
The Court emphasized compliance with the Children Act, praising the timely prosecution.
Scene Preservation is Critical
The Judge commended SOCO and the canine handler for maintaining forensic integrity, which strengthened the case.
Land disputes continue to generate homicide cases
Motive arising from land wrangles was central in linking the accused to the murder.