If You Were the Last Person Seen with Someone Who Later Dies and You Cannot Explain What Happened, the Court May Conclude You Caused the Death; Court of Appeal Clarifies the “Last Seen” Doctrine

Introduction

The doctrine of “last seen” is a principle in criminal law applied in murder cases where the prosecution proves that the accused was the last person seen with the deceased while alive. In such circumstances, although the legal burden of proof remains on the prosecution, an evidential duty arises requiring the accused to offer a reasonable explanation as to how the deceased met his or her death. If no satisfactory explanation is given, the court may properly draw an inference that the accused was responsible.

In Kayita & Another v Uganda, the Court of Appeal reaffirmed this doctrine, borrowing from Nigerian and Kenyan appellate jurisprudence, and clarified that it operates within the broader framework of circumstantial evidence. The Court emphasized that once the prosecution establishes the “last seen” circumstance as part of a coherent chain of evidence, the accused must explain; failing which, the court may infer guilt consistent with the surrounding facts.

Let's look at the case itself.

Facts

On 20 April 2019, the deceased, Sunday Giita Yoakim, lost his sheep. The following morning, 21 April 2019, at approximately 7:30 a.m., the 1st Appellant (Kayita Mariko, a biological brother to the deceased) and the 2nd Appellant (Zaake Francis, son to the 1st Appellant) visited the deceased’s home. The 1st Appellant informed the deceased that he had spotted a slaughtered sheep nearby and offered to take him to identify it. The deceased accepted and the three departed together.

The deceased never returned home. The following day, his body was discovered in the neighbourhood, bearing deep cut wounds on the posterior neck and the lumbar region consistent with panga injuries. Sheep bones were found approximately 10 metres from the body. Postmortem examination confirmed death from these wounds.

PW4 (son of the deceased) had observed the 1st Appellant armed with a panga in a field approximately 200–300 metres from where the body was subsequently discovered, at around 9:30–10:00 a.m. on 21 April 2019. PW5 also saw Waswa (son of the 1st Appellant) and Ssemengo carrying pangas and spears nearby, appearing terrified and walking away quickly.

Evidence was also adduced of a longstanding land dispute between the 1st Appellant and the deceased, arising from an inheritance from their father, in which the 1st Appellant had repeatedly threatened to kill the deceased. PW6 (elder brother of both) confirmed attempts at reconciliation in 2019 failed. Notably, the Appellants did not attend the deceased’s burial.

The Appellants were charged with murder, tried, convicted, and sentenced by the High Court to 35 years’ imprisonment. After deducting remand time, the effective sentence was 31 years and 9 months.

ISSUES ON APPEAL

The Appellants raised five grounds of appeal

Ground 1

Whether the trial Judge erred in relying on weak circumstantial evidence to convict.

Ground 2

Whether the Appellants’ participation in the murder was proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Ground 3

Whether the trial Judge erred in disregarding the Appellants’ defence of alibi.

Ground 4

Whether the trial Judge relied on contradictory and inconsistent evidence to convict.

Ground 5

Whether the sentence of 35 years’ imprisonment was manifestly harsh and excessive.

SUBMISSIONS

Appellants (Mr. Mohammed Mbalile on State Brief)

On Grounds 1, 2 & 4, Counsel argued that the circumstantial evidence was weak and that the chain of evidence was broken by the (i) contradictions in PW3’s testimony regarding whether he saw the Appellants leave with the deceased; (ii) failure to call Serujjo, a material witness; (iii) failure to subject keys recovered at the scene to forensic analysis. Counsel cited Woolmington v DPP [1935] AC 462 and Simon Musoke v R [1957] EA 715 for the proposition that all links in the chain of circumstantial evidence must be unbroken.

On Ground 3, Counsel submitted that the Appellants’ whereabouts on the morning of 21 April 2019 were fully accounted for and their alibi was not demolished by the prosecution. DW9 (Kwizera Geoffrey) gave credible evidence that the 2nd Appellant was at his home buying goats that morning. Counsel relied on Bogere Moses & Anor v Uganda, SCCA No. 1 of 1997.

On Ground 5, Counsel contended that the sentence was excessive and inconsistent with the principle of uniformity in sentencing, noting that the Appellants were first offenders. He prayed for a reduction to 20 years, citing Obwalatum Francis v Uganda, Tukamushaba Justus v Uganda, and the Constitution (Sentencing Guidelines for Courts of Judicature)(Practice) Directions, 2013.

Respondent (Mr. Oola Sam, Senior Assistant DPP)

On Grounds 1 & 2, Counsel submitted that the pieces of circumstantial evidence, taken together, told a complete and unbroken story. PW2 and PW3’s evidence corroborated each other; PW4 observed the 1st Appellant armed with a panga proximate to the scene; the post-mortem report was consistent with panga wounds; and the sheep carcass near the body confirmed the ruse used to lure the deceased. The failure to conduct forensic analysis of the keys and to call Serujjo were not fatal given the strength of other evidence.

On Ground 3, Counsel submitted that the alibi was an afterthought raised only after strong prosecution evidence was led, with none of the key prosecution witnesses challenged in cross-examination. He cited R v Sukha Singh (1939) 6 EACA 145 for the proposition that an alibi must be raised at the earliest opportunity.

On Ground 5, Counsel submitted that the effective sentence of 31 years and 9 months was in fact lenient, citing Rwabugande Moses v Uganda, SCCA No. 25 of 2014, and Bukenya Muhammed & 2 Ors v Uganda CACA No. 903 of 2019, where life imprisonment was upheld for a similar murder of a family member.

COURT’S FINDINGS

Grounds 1, 2 & 4 on Circumstantial Evidence & Contradictions

The Court confirmed that only one discrepancy existed in the prosecution evidence, PW3’s inconsistency about whether he saw the Appellants depart with the deceased. The trial Judge had already resolved this in the Appellants’ favour, finding that it was PW2 alone who witnessed them leave together.

The Court found no further contradictions on PW4’s failure to describe the 1st Appellant’s clothing as a contradiction, given that the 1st Appellant was his uncle and already known to him. PW4 provided a sufficient description.

PW4 describing PW2 as his ‘mother’ was explained by PW6’s evidence that PW2 was a stepmother, not a biological contradiction or act of deliberate untruthfulness.

The land dispute motive was well established through PW2, PW3, PW4, and PW6, and was not shaken by the 1st Appellant’s denial.

The Court found that the circumstantial evidence was cogent and consistent, placing the Appellants at the scene

"We find that the evidence presented was enough to link the Appellants to the murder of the deceased."

The Court also found that the evidence of PW4, seeing the 1st Appellant holding a panga about 200–300 metres from where the body was found, corroborated the post-mortem findings of panga wounds:

"We believe that it is the panga that the 1st Appellant was holding that was used to cut the deceased."

Ground 3 on the Defence of Alibi

The Court found the Appellants’ alibi unconvincing, describing the 1st Appellant’s account as comprising “disjointed statements” and the 2nd Appellant’s account as a near-verbatim repeat of his father’s, a planned afterthought. The Court applied the doctrine of “last seen,” citing Busingye Paul & Ampereza Lawrence v Uganda, Criminal Appeal No. 048 of 2022 and 056 of 2019, and the Nigerian authority of Moses Jua v The State (2007) JELR 44034:

"Even though the onus of proof in criminal cases always rests squarely on the prosecution at all times, the last seen theory, in the prosecution of murder or culpable homicide cases is that where the deceased was last seen with the accused, there is a duty placed on the accused to give an explanation relating to how the deceased met his or her death. In the absence of any explanation, the Court is justified in drawing the inference that the accused killed the deceased."

Applying this doctrine, the Court concluded that;

"In this case therefore, since the Appellants were the last to be seen with the deceased, when they left his home together, we find that they are the ones who killed the deceased."

The Court also noted that the alibi was raised belatedly, only during the defence phase after prosecution had led strong, unchallenged evidence, and relied on R v Sukha Singh s/o Wazir Singh & Others (1939) 6 EACA 145, which holds that an accused should raise an alibi at the earliest possible opportunity.

Ground 5 on Sentence

The Court declined to interfere with the trial Judge’s sentence, finding the sentence of 35 years (effective: 31 years and 9 months after remand deduction) to be within the appropriate sentencing range. It relied on the principle from Ogalo s/o Owoura v R (1954) 21 EACA 270 and Kamya Johnson Wavamuno v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 16 of 2000) that an appellate court will not interfere with a sentence unless the trial court acted on a wrong principle, overlooked a material factor, or the sentence is manifestly excessive.

The Court referenced the case of Aharikundira v Uganda [2018] UGSC 49 on the brutal murder of husband with dismemberment: 30 years. The court also referenced the case of Bukenya Muhammed & 2 Others v Uganda CACA No. 903 of 2019, murder of a brother: life imprisonment upheld.

The Court further referenced the case of Sebuliba v Uganda CACA No. 319 of 2009, wherein a panga murder and life imprisonment was upheld.

Lastly, referencing the decision in Mugero Patrick & Anor v Uganda CACA No. 76 of 2019, murder, 45 years upheld.

The Court found the 35-year sentence appropriate and confirmed both the conviction and the sentence.

HOLDING

The appeal was dismissed. The Appellants’ conviction for murder under sections 171 and 172 of the Penal Code Act Cap 128 is upheld.

The sentence of 35 years’ imprisonment (effective 31 years and 9 months after remand deduction) imposed by the High Court is confirmed.

The Appellants shall continue serving the sentence.

Read the full case below

Kayita Mariko and Another v Uganda 2026 UGCA 23 (18 February 2026).pdf

Download PDF • 21.98MB

Commentary

Kayita Mariko & Zaake Emmanuel v. Uganda illustrates the doctrine of “last seen” as a decisive yet flexible tool. It does not provide for automatic conviction; rather, it must be corroborated by other facts. Its proper application requires careful assessment of witness credibility, motive, and timing. Late or inconsistent alibi claims are generally insufficient to rebut it.

Moreover, minor discrepancies in witness testimony do not weaken the doctrine where the overall chain of circumstantial evidence remains intact.

This case reaffirms that, in Ugandan criminal law, the doctrine of last seen is not a magic bullet, but a lens through which courts evaluate the strength of circumstantial evidence, permitting inferences of guilt where alternative explanations are implausible or absent.

Conclusion

The appeal was dismissed, and both conviction and sentence were confirmed. The case underscores that the doctrine of last seen, when properly applied and supported by other evidence, can provide a strong foundation for murder convictions, while ensuring that guilt is inferred only within the framework of the broader evidentiary landscape.

DISCLAIMER: This Court Update is prepared for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should seek independent legal counsel on specific matters.