THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA KAMPALA

CRIMINAL DIVISION
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 0571 OF 2020
5
UGANDA::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::PROSECUTION

VERSUS
1. KASOLO COPORIYAMU ALIAS ARSENAL
10 2. LUBEGA JOHNSON ALIAS ETOO ALIAS MANOMANO ALIAS
RASTA
3. KALYANGO NASIF ALIAS MUWONGE
4. KISEKA HASSAN ALIAS MASADDA
5. MPANGA SHARIF ALIAS SHAFIQ
15 6. KATEREGA SADAT ALIAS BAROS:::::::::::ACCUSSED

BEFORE HON: JUSTICE ISAAC MUWATA

JUDGEMENT
20 The accused persons are each indicted on two counts of Kidnap with
intent to murder contrary to section 243(1)(a) of the Penal Code Act; two
counts of Murder contrary to section 188 & 189 of the Penal Code Act;
and two counts of Aggravated Robbery contrary to section 285 and 286(2)
of the Penal Code Act.
25 It is alleged in count one that the accused persons on the 28th day of
August 2019 at Nabisasilo Zone, Rubaga Division in Kampala District, with
intent to murder, forcefully kidnapped Nagirinya Maria Gateni.
It is further alleged in count two that the accused persons on the 28th day
of August 2019 at Nabisasilo Zone, Rubaga Division in Kampala District,
30 with intent to murder, forcefully kidnapped Kitayimbwa Ronald.
It is alleged in count three that the accused persons on the 28th day of
August 2019 within areas of Kampala and Mukono district, with malice
aforethought killed Nagirinya Maria Gateni.
It is further alleged in count four that the accused persons on the 28th day
35 of August 2019 within areas of Kampala and Mukono district, with malice
aforethought killed Kitayimbwa Ronald.

1
 It is alleged in count five that the accused persons on the 28th day of
August 2019 within areas of Kampala and Mukono district, robbed
Nagirinya Maria Gateni of her motor vehicle Reg. No. UBA 570V Spacio
40 white in color, mobile phone IMEI NO. 862953044557610, CASH
260,000/= (Two hundred and sixty thousand shillings only) and at or
before or after the time of the robbery, caused the death of Nagirinya
Maria Gateni.
It is further alleged in count six that the accused persons on the 28th day
45 of August 2019 within areas of Kampala and Mukono district, robbed
Kitayimbwa Ronald of his mobile phone Nokia S/No. 356839092092020,
cash 24,000/= (twenty-four thousand shillings only) and at or before or
after the time of the robbery, caused the death of Kitayimbwa Ronald.
Representation
50 A1, Kasolo Coporiyamu alias Arsenal opted to waive his rights to legal
representation and chose to represent himself.
A3 (Kalyango Nasif alias Muwonge), A4 (Kiseka Hassan alias Masadda)
and A5 (Mpanga Sharif alias Shariq were represented by Counsel
Sselwanga Geoffrey.
55 A2, (Lubega Johnson alias Etoo) and A6, Katerega Sadat alias Barros were
represented by Counsel Sselwambala Julius Caesar.

The prosecution was represented by Chief State Attorney Muwaganya

Jonathan and Senior State Attorney Amerit Timothy.
60
Burden of proof.
In criminal cases, the Prosecution has the burden of proving the case
against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. The burden does
not shift to the accused persons. See: Wilmington versus DPP [1935]
65 AC 462.
Proof beyond reasonable doubt though does not mean proof beyond a
shadow of doubt. The prosecution evidence should be of such standard
as leaves no logical explanation to be derived from the facts, except that
the accused committed the offence. The accused persons should
70 therefore only be convicted on the strength of the prosecution case and
not the weaknesses in their defense.
2
 All the accused persons were examined and found to be of normal mental
state.
I will proceed to resolve the matter.
75 Kidnap with intent to murder contrary to section 243(1)(a) of the
Penal Code Act.
To prove kidnap with intent to murder, the prosecution had to prove the
following ingredients of the offence beyond reasonable doubt.
1. There was taking away of a person(s)
80 2. The taking away was accomplished by force or fraud.
3. The taking away was against the victim’s will.
4. That the perpetrators of the offence were motivated by an intent to
murder the victim(s)
5. That the accused persons were the perpetrators of the offence.
85
Kidnap or taking away a person:
Kidnapping may be defined as the taking away or transportation of a
person against that person’s will, usually to hold that person in false
imprisonment, or confinement without legal authority. This may be done
90 for ransom or in furtherance of another crime. See: Uganda vs
Musimami & 2 Ors, Criminal Session 31 of 2011

To prove this ingredient, the prosecution relied on the evidence of

Ssenabulya Isaac alias Kisunsu (PW9) who testified that they found the
95 motor vehicle of Nagirinya Maria Gateni at the gate, hooting and about to
enter inside. He stated that he found A1 and A2 already inside and he also
joined them inside. He stated that inside the car was a male and female
occupant.

100 He further stated that they forcefully laid down the occupants in the rear
seats of the Motor Vehicle and they drove away from the gate. It was also
the evidence of PW9 that the occupants in the vehicle were pleading with
them to tell them the reason they were being captured but their pleas
were ignored. Later, their bodies were recovered from Nakitutuli valley,
105 Lukojo Village, Mpoma Parish, Nama Sub county in Mukono District. I find
this evidence sufficient to prove that the victims were kidnapped.

3
 Whether the kidnapping was by force and against the will of the
victims. The 2 ingredients will be handled together.
110 According to the evidence of PW9, Ssenabulya Isaac alias Kisunsu the
victims were taken away by force and against their will. That they forced
them to sit in the rear seats of the motor vehicle and drove away from
their gate. He also told court that the victims pleaded with them but their
pleas were not heed. The fact that the victims were later found dead
115 implies that they were taken by force and against their will. This fact was
not disputed. I find that the prosecution proved that the victims were
taken against their will and the same was done by force.

Whether the perpetrators of the kidnap were motivated by an

120 intent to murder the victims.
The intent to kidnap and murder maybe inferred from the fact that the
victims were found murdered. In this particular case PW1 and PW2 the
medical personnel gave evidence to the effect that the victims were
brutally murdered. This evidence was corroborated by PW9 who testified
125 that the victims were murdered using a log and a car jack. The eventual
murder of the victims is sufficient proof that there was intention to
murder.

The aspect of participation shall be addressed later.

130
Murder
The offence of murder is said to be committed where any person who,
with malice aforethought, causes the death of another person by an
unlawful act or omission. The following ingredients must be proved
135 beyond reasonable doubt.
1. Death of a human being.
2. That death was caused unlawfully.
3. The death was carried out with malice aforethought.
4. The accused person(s) participated in the commission of
140 the offence or, are responsible for the death.

Death of a human being.

Death of a human being may be proved by production of a post mortem
report or evidence of witnesses who state that they knew the deceased
4
145 person and attended the burial or saw the dead body. See: Uganda Vs
Mwesigwa Jamada & 3 others High Court Criminal Session Case
No.1348 of 2016.

The prosecution relied on the evidence of PW1, Dr. Moses Byaruhanga, a

150 Forensics Pathologist and a Director of Health Services in the Uganda
Police Force who testified that he examined the body of the deceased on
31st August 2019. In detail, PW1 described the nature injuries which were
on the body of Nagirinya Maria. He stated that the cause of death was
neurogenic shock following blunt head trauma. The postmortem report
155 was exhibited in court as PEx 1.

The prosecution also relied on the evidence of Dr. William Male Mutumba
(PW2) a pathologist to prove the death of Ronald Kitayimbwa. He told
court that he examined the body of Kitayimbwa Ronald. He found that the
160 deceased person died as a result of head injury due to blunt force trauma.
The postmortem report was tendered in court as PEx 2

PW4 Lubowa Francis Anthony the biological father of Nagirinya Maria

Gateni also confirmed that Nagirinya Maria had been killed. Mukasa
165 Lawrence (PW5) equally testified that Kitayimbwa Ronald had been killed
and that they buried him.

I find that the prosecution proved the death of Maria Nagirinya and
Kitayimbwa Ronald.
170
Death was unlawfully caused
Any homicide (the killing of a human being by another) is presumed
to have been caused unlawfully unless it was accidental or it was
authorized by law:See R v. Gusambizi s/o Wesonga (1948) 15 EACA
175 65)

To prove that the death was caused unlawfully, the prosecution adduced
the evidence of Ssenabulya Isaac alias Kisunsu (PW9) who testified that
when they had reached at the scene of Crime in Mukono along with A1 –
180 Kasolo Corpuriyamu and A2 – Lubega John Manomano, A1 opened the
doors of the car,picked out Nagirinya Maria and hit her with a car jack on
5
 the head. It was also the evidence of PW9 that A2 brought a big log gave
it to A1 who beat Kitayimbwa Ronald.

185 The prosecution also adduced evidence of the postmortem report of

Nagirinya Maria (PEx1) tendered in by Dr. Byaruhanga Moses (PW1) which
indicated that her death was caused by neurogenic shock following blunt
head trauma. And the postmodern report of Kitayimbwa Ronald (PEx2)
tendered in by Dr. William Male Mulumba(PW2) indicates that he died as
190 a result of head injury due to blunt force trauma with considerable
magnitude given the nature of the injuries. Each of the postmortem
reports clearly indicate the diverse injuries sustained by each of the
deceased persons on their heads. This corroborates the testimony of PW9.
The evidence as a whole clearly shows that this was not a natural or
195 accidental death but a double homicide. The death was caused unlawfully
and I find that the prosecution adduced sufficient evidence to prove this
beyond reasonable doubt.
Malice aforethought
The law in relation to what is entailed by malice aforethought is settled.
200 Section 191 of the Penal Code Act defines malice aforethought either as
an intention to cause death of a person or knowledge that the act causing
death will probably cause the death of some person.
According to the above provision of the law, the basic element in proving
malice aforethought is the existence of an intention to cause death. There
205 must be a premeditated or planned intention to cause death. In the
absence of the accused person’s premeditation to kill, the conviction
cannot stand.
Malice aforethought may be established when the harm is directed at a
sensitive and vulnerable part of the body, this is because usually an
210 attacker will not declare his intention to cause death or grievous harm so
whether or not he had the intention must be ascertained from various
factors which include the type and size of the weapon used in the attack
leading to the death of the victim, the amount of force used by the
attacker on the victim ,the part or parts of the body of the deceased where
215 the injury was inflicted. This position was restated in the cases of R V
Tubere S/O Ochen (1954) E.A.C.A 63. and Akol Patrick & Others
versus Uganda, (2006) H.C.B Vol. 16.

6
 Similarly, in the case of Nanyonjo Harriet & Another vs. Uganda
Criminal Appeal No. 24 of 2002 (Supreme Court) it was held that
220 for a court to infer that an accused killed with malice aforethought it must
consider if death was a natural consequence of the act that caused the
death, and if the accused foresaw death as a natural consequence of the
act.
The deceased Nagirinya Maria Gateni sustained the following injuries as
225 indicated in the postmortem report exhibited in court as PEx 1.
She had an extensive contusion of the lips with lacerations, she also had
a fractured right upper jaw with fresh loss of two teeth. The report also
indicated that the she had a big stellate scalp laceration with a fractured
skull. It was further indicated that the head and neck had multiple
230 fractures. The cause of death was neurogenic shock following blunt head
trauma.
For Kitayimbwa Ronald, the prosecution adduced evidence of PW2 who
testified that upon examining Kitayimbwa Ronald’s body he found the
following external and internal injuries.
235 Kitayimbwa Ronald had a depression on the skull, the right eye socket
was collapsed implying that the bones were fractured and almost inside
the skull. The victim also suffered cut wounds on the face which were
bone deep. He also had laceration wounds on the forehead which were
skin deep. PW2 further stated that the victim suffered multiple internal
240 fractures and the cause of death was head injury following blunt force.
The nature of the injuries sustained by the victims are consistent with the
evidence of PW9 who stated that the lady was hit with a car jack on the
head while the man was hit with a log. The photo exhibits of the bodies
marked as PEx.15 showed the extent of the injuries. I therefore find that
245 the prosecution proved malice aforethought
I will deal with the element of participation later.
Aggravated Robbery.
The following elements of the offence have to be proved by the
prosecution:
250 (1) There was theft of property.
(2) Use of actual violence at, before or after the theft or that the accused
persons caused death to the victim(s)
7
 (3) The assailants were armed with a deadly weapon before, during or
after the theft.
255 (4) Participation of the accused persons.
That there was theft of property
Theft occurs when a person fraudulently and with intent to deprive the
owner of a thing capable of being stolen takes that thing from the owner
without a claim of right. See: Section 254 (1) of the Penal Code Act.
260 Under section 254(1) of the Penal Code Act, the offence of theft is
sufficiently proved upon proof of the fraudulent taking or conversion of
any item that is capable of being stolen.
In proving theft there is no legal requirement to prove ownership. Once
asportation of the property takes place without the consent of the one in
265 possession, then theft has occurred. See: Sula Kasiira v Uganda
Criminal Appeal No.20 Of 1993 (SC).
To prove theft of mobile phones and the mobile money, the prosecution
relied on the evidence of PW9 who testified that before the victims were
killed, they took their phones and forced them to disclose the pin numbers
270 of their mobile money accounts, which they did. PW9 stated that it was
A2 who went with the phones to withdraw the money. He also testified
that they later withdrew money from the phones of Nagirinya and
Kitayimbwa and all the accused persons shared of it the following day
from Mabiito in Nateete. He also mentioned that it was A1 giving out the
275 share of the money and also identified A3 and A5 as part of the persons
who received this money were given the share of the money.
The prosecution further relied on the evidence of Iga Disan (PW14) who
stated that he is a mobile money operator. It was his evidence that on
the 29th August 2019 at around 5:00am while at his kiosk in Nateete, A2
280 asked him to withdraw money from a phone. That the money in the phone
was 270,000/=. And upon conducting the withdraw transaction, the
phone of A2 showed the names Nagirinya Maria. That the agent line he
was using was 0708218948 and money was withdrawn from mobile line
– 0704970863 in the name of Nagirinya Maria.
285 The prosecution also relied on the Data Analysis Report tendered by PW21
as PEx 42, which included an airtel money statement indicating that
money 260,000/= (Two hundred and sixty thousand shillings) had been
withdrawn from Phone No. 0704970863 on 29/08/2019 at 05:55hrs to
8
 agent line 0708218948 which he later identified belonged to Iga Disan a
290 mobile money agent). (PW14) Iga Disan identified A2 as the person who
came to withdraw money.
The prosecution further relied on the evidence of Wakubibwa Tom
(PW13), who testified that on 31st of August, 2019, at about 6:24PM, a
certain gentleman went to him and made a mobile money transaction.
295 That he withdrew 24,000/= on the line of Kitayimbwa Ronald. That when
initiating or doing that transaction the phone displayed the names of
Kitayimbwa Ronald. That after completing the transaction, he gave him
the 24,000/= he requested for. He stated that his mobile money agent
number is 0704-835-744. And that the number of the customer from
300 which the money was withdrawn was 0755-848-732.
The Simcard history of Kitayimbwa’s Line as per the Data Analysis Report
tendered by PW21 as PEx 42, indicated that after the crime, his phone
number was inserted in phone handset IMEI no. 357360101817340 on
31/08/2019 at 07:48:32 AM to 1/09/2019 at 04:36:40 PM; during which
305 money was withdrawn from it on 31st August 2019 at 18:25 Hrs. This
handset according to the evidence of PW8 Frank Nyakairu was recovered
from Lubega Johnson. The Airtel money statement of Tel No. 0755848732
shows that 24,000/= (twenty-four thousand shillings) was withdrawn
from it on 31/08/2019 at 1825hrs to agent line No. 0704835744. This
310 evidence corroborates the testimony of PW13 Wakubibwa Tom a mobile
money agent.
To prove theft of motor vehicle Reg. UBA 570V, the prosecution relied on
the evidence of Ssenabulya Isaac (PW9) who told court that on the night
of 28th August 2019 they found a vehicle at the gate and forcefully
315 accessed it and drove away with its occupants in it. The persons who
drove away the motor vehicle had no claim of right over it as the
occupants had been kidnapped.
PW9 further stated that it was A1 who drove away the motor vehicle up
to Mukono where they later murdered Nagirinya Maria and Kitayimbwa
320 Ronald from. The Printed image of motor vehicle Regn. No. UBA 570V
was admitted as PEx14.
D/Sgt Barasa T. James (PW21), stated that the said Motor Vehicle is a
Spacio, white in color under Registration No. UBA 570V belonged to
Nagirinya Maria Gateni. He also testified that on the night of the 28th
325 August 2019, it was Kitayimbwa Ronald who was driving the said Motor

9
 Vehicle while Nagirinya Maria Gateni was seated at the in front passenger
seat before they were attacked.
The prosecution also relied on the evidence of SP Ogwang Nixon (PW19)
who testified that the Motor vehicle in the photograph admitted as - PEx14
330 was taken and captured by an ANPR (Automatic Number Plate
Recognition) Camera at Kinawataka at 00:52:26 and the Motor vehicle
was captured while it was being driven by a man towards Kireka. That
man was identified by PW9 to be A1(Kasolo Coporiyamu). PW9 also told
court that they abandoned the motor vehicle at Kigaga in Nateete. This
335 evidence is corroborated by the evidence of Kabuye Budalah (PW6) who
informed court that on the night of 28th – 29th August 2019 at around
2:00am, he saw the motor vehicle abandoned at Kigaga Zone. He
described the Motor vehicle as a white spacio.
From the evidence adduced by the prosecution, I find that there was theft
340 of the motor vehicle Reg.No.UBA 570V, mobile phone IMEI NO.
862953044557610, CASH 260,000/= (Two hundred and sixty thousand
shillings only) all belonging to the deceased Maria Nagirrinya Gateni. I
also find that there was theft of mobile phone Nokia S/No.
356839092092020, cash 24,000/= (twenty-four thousand shillings only)
345 belonging to Kitayimbwa Ronald. This ingredient was therefore proved
beyond reasonable doubt.
Use of actual violence at, before or after the theft or that the
accused persons caused the death of the victims.
The prosecution relied on the evidence of Ssenabulya Isaac (PW9) who
350 stated that when they rode to the home of Nagirinya, where they found
a motor vehicle at the gate entered it forcefully with the aid of A1(Kasolo
Coporiyamu) and A2(Lubega Johnson) and they forced the occupants in
the rear seats and sat on them and drove away.
PW9 also stated that at the murder scene in Mukono, A1 with the aid of
355 A2 used a log to beat Kitayimbwa Ronald while A1 got a car jack from the
boot and started hitting the head of Nagirinya Maria till she died. The
photos of the deceased persons tendered in as PEx.15 painted a
gruesome picture as to the violence occasioned on the victims.
The car jack was tendered as PEX28. The violence meted out on the
360 victims led to their death as clearly indicated in PEX 1 and PEx 2 tendered
in court by PW1 and PW2. The car jack and the log were deadly weapons
in this case since they led to the death of the victims.
10
 I find that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that there
was use of actual violence before, during and after the theft which led to
365 the death of the victims.
I will now deal with participation in respect to all the counts
Participation of the accused persons may be proved by direct or
circumstantial evidence placing them at the scene of crime at the material
time. The direct evidence would be the testimonies of witnesses who
370 claimed to have seen or identified the accused persons in the course of
commission of the said offences.
In determining this issue, the court must examine all evidence closely,
bearing in mind the established general rule that an accused person does
not have to prove his innocence. It is up to the prosecution to disprove
375 the defense of the accused persons by adducing evidence that shows that,
despite the defense, the offence was committed and was committed by
the accused persons. See: Sekitoleko Vs Uganda [1967] EA 531.
In their defense, A1(Kasolo Coporiyamu) raised an alibi and stated that
on the 28th August, 2019, the day the alleged offences were said to have
380 been committed he was at his work place at Mabiito in Natete. He told
court that he is a hawker who works in the night. It was his evidence that
he came to Mabiito at 7. 00p.m, and left the place at 7. 00a.m the
following morning. He also denied knowing the rest of the accused
persons except Katerega Sadat(A6) whom he was living with.
385 A2 raised an Alibi and stated that on the 28th day of August, 2019 when
the alleged offences took place, he was singing at Laza Pub in at Salama
Road in Kampala District between 10:00pm– 12:00 after which he went
to VOX in Makindye to relax up to around 6:00 am after which he went
home.
390 A3 (Kalyango Nasif Alias Muwonge) testified that on that day he was at
Alex’s shop, and one of the boda-boda riders by the names of Kiseka
Hassan came to him with 4 people who and wanted him to carry them
but he was alone. He admitted riding A1, A2 and PW9 but stated that he
did not know their motive.
395 A4 (Kiseka Hassan Alias Masadda) opted to keep quiet.
A5 (Mpanga Sharif Aliais Shariq) testified that on that day, he was coming
back from taking a passenger to Bulenga, when Kalyango Nasif called him
using a phone number which was not known to him informing him that
11
 he had some passengers to carry and need help as he could not carry
400 them all. He admitted carrying A1 and A2 and PW9 but stated that he did
not know their motive.
A6 denied knowledge of the charges against him and stated that he was
arrested because A1(Kasolo Coporiyamu) had had led the police to his
place.
405 The legal position with regard to an alibi is that there is no onus on an
accused person to prove it. Once the accused person raises it, the
evidential burden shifts back to the prosecution to disprove it.
The accused person therefore has only to raise it but has no duty of
proving it. Prosecution bears the duty of destroying the defense by putting
410 the accused at the scene of crime at the time (it) was being committed.
See: Bogere Moses v Uganda Supreme Criminal Appeal No. 1 of
1997)
The defense of alibi does not have to be considered in isolation. The court
must consider the alibi in the light of the totality of the evidence. The
415 defense of alibi naturally dissipates upon adducing evidence of the
identifying witnesses placing the accused persons at the scene of crime
at the material time.
To disprove the defense of alibi, the prosecution relied on the evidence of
PW9 (Ssenabulya Isaac alias Kisunsu) who testified that while at Natete,
420 Kasolo Coporiyamu (A1) together with Manomano John (A2) went to him
and told them to join them and get money. That they went along on motor
cycles with Muwonge (A3) and Mpanga Sharif (A5). That they found the
motor vehicle of Nagirinya Maria Gateni at the gate, hooting, and about
to enter in the home.
425 PW9 further testified that he found A1(Kasolo Coporiyamu) and
A2(Lubega Johnson) already in motor vehicle and they told him join them
inside. He said that inside the car was a male and female. He stated that,
they lay the male and female occupants down in the rear seats of the
Motor Vehicle, and they sat on them together with A2. He further told
430 court that it was A1 driving the motor vehicle. It was also his evidence
that the victims pleaded with them, but A1 silenced them until Mukono,
where they were later murdered from.
The prosecution acknowledged that the offence occurred at night, but
contended that the circumstances were favorable for the correct

12
435 identification of the assailants. In the case of Moses Bogere and
Another Vs Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 1 1997)
the court outlined the factors for correct identification to include the
length of time the accused was under observation, the distance, the light
and the familiarity of the witness with the accused.
440 In this case, PW9 was an eye witness and part of the assailants who
directly participated in the commission of the offences right from the
planning, the movements, and execution. He knew each of them, how
they were dressed and gave a detailed account of the role played by each
of them. At both the scene of kidnap and murder, his testimony was that
445 he was aided by light from the motor vehicle to see whatever was taking
place. He was physically present at each event and was in close proximity.
The direct evidence of PW9 is therefore relevant to the defense of alibi
raised by A1, A2 as it places them at the crime scene and positively
identifies them as the persons who committed the offences.
450 To support the testimony of PW9, A3(Kalyango Nassif) testified that he
met A1(Kasolo Coporiyamu), A2(Lubega Johnson) and PW9 on the night.
It was his evidence that he rode A1 and A2 while PW9 and another still at
large sat on A5’s motorcycle. That when they reached Busega, A1 and A2
went and sat on A5’s motorcycle because his had developed a mechanical
455 problem. He stated that he closely followed them with PW9 to Lungujja
A3(Kalyanago Nassif) further testified that at Lungujja, a motor vehicle
came flashing lights and stopped them. That A1 was inside the vehicle
which stopped them. He added that this vehicle stopped and A1 opened
the door and told PW9 to enter and A1 immediately drove away. In his
460 evidence he clearly described how A1, A2 and PW9 were dressed. He was
able to properly identify A1, and A2 as he had met them earlier.
Furthermore, A5(Mpanga Sharif) testified that at about 10pm on that
night, he rode A1 and A2 on his motorcycle to Lungujja. He told court that
on the night after carrying A1 and A2, he received a call from someone
465 asking him to go to Namanve and pick them up. He told court that he
wasn’t sure who it was but the person introduced himself as the people
he had earlier on carried to Kalerwe and Lungujja. That he rode up to
Bweyogerere and when he reached they him that they informed him that
they had gotten someone else to carry them.
470 A5(Mpanga Sharif) testified that A1(Kasolo Coporiyamu) A2(Lubega
Johnson) lied when he told court that he had never carried them on that

13
 night the offences were committed and that he was not known to them.
To the contrary, A5 sufficiently described how A1(Kasolo Coporiyamu),
A2(Lubega Johnson) and PW9 were dressed on the night. His evidence
475 contradicts the claim by A1 and A2 that they had never seen him and
directly places them at the crime scene contrary to their defense of alibi.
I found his evidence credible as he properly described A1 and A2 as the
people he carried.
In an attempt to dispute PW9 evidence in chief implicating them, A1 and
480 A2 testified that they did not know him. They stated that that PW9 was a
police officer who had tortured them while in custody at Katwe Police
station. I have found this not to be true because the evidence of PW9 is
corroborated by that of A3 and A5 who stated that they had carried the
three of them that night on their motorcycles. They unequivocally stated
485 that PW9 has never been a police officer. I therefore consider this claim
by A1 and A2 a false hood not supported by any evidence.
The evidence of PW9(Ssenabulya Isaac), A3(Kalyago Nassif) A5(Mpanga
Sharif) is essentially accomplice evidence. In a criminal trial, a witness is
said to be an accomplice if he participated as a principal or an accessory
490 in the commission of the offences subject of the trial. One of the clearest
cases of an accomplice is where the witness has confessed to the
participation in an offence, or has been convicted of the offence either on
his own plea of guilty or on the court finding him guilty after the trial.
See:Nasolo V Uganda Criminal Appeal No.14 of 2000 (SC) [2003]
495 EA 181,189
The law with regard to accomplice evidence is provided for under section
132 of the Evidence Act. It provides that;
An accomplice shall be a competent witness against an accused
person; and a conviction is not illegal merely because it proceeds
500 upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice.
While the court may convict on uncorroborated evidence of an
accomplice, it is normally desirable that such evidence is corroborated
with some other independent evidence. The corroboration which should
be looked for is, as laid down in the case of R v Baskerville [1916] 2
505 KB 658, some additional evidence rendering it probable that the story of
the accomplice is true and that it is reasonably safe to act upon it. It must
be independent evidence which affects the accused by connecting him or
tending to connect him with the crime, confirming in some material

14
 particular not only the evidence that the crime has been committed but
510 also that the accused committed it.
The prosecution relied on the evidence D/ASP Nakatudde Winfred
(PW15), who recorded a charge and caution of A1. The court conducted
a trial within a trial and came to a finding that the Charge and Caution
Statement of A1 was obtained voluntarily and that the accused was not
515 tortured and coerced to record it, as he claimed. The original Luganda
version of the Charge and Caution statement and the English translated
version were tendered in court and admitted as Exhibits in Evidence and
accordingly marked as PEx19 & PEx 20 respectively.
In that charge and caution statement, A1 confesses unequivocally his
520 participation in the kidnap, murder and robbery of Nagirinya Maria Gateni
and Kitayimbwa Ronald. A1(Kasolo Coporiyamu) also stated that
A2(Lubega Johnson), A3(Kalyango Nassif), A4(Kiseka Hassan),
A5(Mpanga Sharif), A6(Katerega Sadat) all fully participated in the
commission of the offences, and he disclosed the roles of each participant.
525 D/Sgt Barasa (PW21) testified that he interviewed each of the accused
persons and A1 admitted to have led his colleagues into the commission
of kidnap and murder. He testified that A1 mentioned Lubega Johnson,
commonly known as Rasta(A2), Mpanga Sharif(A5), Kateregga Sadat,
(A6) Kalyango Nasif(A3), Kiseka Hassan Masada(A4), Senabulya Isaac
530 Kisunsu(PW9) and a one Fred whose whereabouts are unknown.
PW21 also testified that he interviewed Kalyango Nasif(A3) alias
Muwonge, who admitted taking part in the kidnap and murder of
Nagirinya and Kitayimbwa Ronald. He further testified that he interviewed
A2 who revealed to him one of the pangas which was used in the
535 commission of this crime and where it was kept. PW21 also testified that
A1, Kasolo identified to them Kisekka Hassan (A4) as one who was part
of them.
PW21 also testified that A5 admitted taking part in the kidnap and murder
of Nagirinya Maria and Kitayimbwa Ronald. He further testified that
540 Kalyango Nasif (A5) revealed having used a motor cycle to carry Kasolo
Coprium and Lubega Johnson to the scene of kidnap.
No. 40132 D/CPL Osekenye Michael (PW12) joined a team of
investigators who were led by the accused persons for a scene
reconstruction. He recorded the video which captured A1, A2 and A3

15
545 making voluntary narrations of how they committed the offences at the
various scene of crime.
Section 29 of the Evidence Act provides that,
Notwithstanding sections 23 and 24, when any fact is deposed
to as discovered in consequence of information received from a
550 person accused of any offence, so much of that information,
whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly
to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved
The flash containing the video of scene reconstruction was admitted and
tendered as PEx 18. Therein the accused persons revealed the spot at
555 ABC stage where they converged. They also revealed information as to
how they kidnapped Nagirinya Maria Gateni and Kitayimbwa Ronald at the
gate of Nagirinya’s home, they also revealed the incidences at Mukono
where they killed Nagirinya Maria Gateni and Kitayimbwa Ronald and
dumped their bodies, and also reveal where A1 threw the red jacket which
560 was given to him by Kisekka Hassan (A4) so as to conceal the toy pistol,
it also reveals where they abandoned the motor vehicle of Nagirinya Maria
Gateni and where A2 withdrew mobile airtel money from – from the
phones of Nagirinya Maria Gateni and Kitayimbwa Ronald. A transcribed
copy of the scene reconstruction video was tendered in court and
565 admitted as PEx 21.
In the case of Serunkuma Edirisa & others vs Uganda Criminal
Appeal No. 0147 of 2015 it was stated that a ‘co-accused's confession
statement may be relied upon as against the maker and his/her other co-
accused in the joint trial.’ See also - Festo Androa Asenua & another
570 vs Uganda, Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 001 of 1998.
A confessional statement includes not only admission of the offence, but
also admissions of substantially all incriminating facts which constitute the
offence. Apart from A1 and A2, none of the accused persons complained
of being tortured and as already noted the question of torture was
575 determined during the trial within a trial. Accordingly, the charge and
caution statements both the one recorded in Luganda and translated in
English were admitted as PEX19 & PEX20 and contained sufficient
evidence to implicate A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, in the kidnap of Nagirinya Maria
and Kitayimbwa Ronald.
580 A1 repudiated the confessional statement he made and denied
participating in the commission of the alleged offences. The law relating
16
 to retracted and repudiated confessions is that a trial court should accept
any confession which has been retracted or repudiated or both retracted
and repudiated with caution, and must before founding a conviction on
585 such confession be fully satisfied that in all the circumstances of the case
the confession is true. The same standard of proof is required in all cases
and usually a court will only act on the confession if corroborated in some
material particular by independent evidence accepted by the court. But
corroboration is not mandatory in law and the court may act on a
590 confession alone if it is fully satisfied after considering all the material
points and surrounding circumstances that the confession cannot but be
true. See: Tuwamoi vs Uganda (1967) E.A. 84 at page 91
The charge and caution of A1 and video of scene reconstruction of the
accused persons which was tendered as PEx 18 could only be made by
595 persons who were active participants and eye witnesses to much of what
occurred on the night the offences were committed. They seemed to be
familiar with what had transpired. It is true that A1 and A2 gave sworn
evidence in which they repudiated the confession and the statements
made during the scene reconstruction. However, a number of factors exist
600 to discredit any claim that this repudiation affected the facts and events
of the scene reconstruction. They were consistent with the versions of the
other witnesses.
The consistency on the events leading up to the commission of the
offences as shown by the video of scene reconstruction would reasonably
605 denotes such knowledge as it could only have been informed by the
accused persons’ participation in the commission of the alleged offenses.
It also further underscores the authenticity of the said confessional
statements as they are consistent with the other testimonies of PW9,
PW21, A3 and A5.
610 The prosecution also relied on the evidence of PW21 who adduced
evidence of call data analysis he established from his investigations. The
report was tendered in and marked as PEx 42 and it revealed the
following;
That the user of the phone number 0700415952 was Kasolo
615 Coporiyamu. That the NIN number which was used to register simcard
0706991311 was used in phone IMEI No. 357435107724870 recovered
from Kasolo Coporiyamu at the time of arrest. This phone was not
exhibited in court but the report confirmed that Both Phone Nos.
0700415952 and 0706991311 were used by Kasolo Coporiyamu.
17
620 The report also revealed that Phone number 0700415952 was used in an
itel handset IMEI no. 356020097329920. The said Simcard (0700415952)
was on the 1/09/2019 inserted in an itel handset which had three simcard
pots, namely; SIMCARD Pot IMEI no. 357360101817360, SIMCARD Pot
IMEI no. 357360101817340 and SIMCARD Pot IMEI no.
625 357360101817350. SIMCARD Pot IMEI no. 357360101817360 is where
the Phone No. 0700415952 was inserted on the 1/09/2019. SIMCARD Pot
IMEI no. 357360101817340 is also where Kitayimbwa’s line was inserted
and money withdrawn.
Call data records show that the user of the phone number 0700415952;
630 (that is Kasolo Coporiayamu), had voice communications with Mpanga
Sharif (0758111216) prior the commission of the offences, on 28th August
2019 at 17:48:14 hrs, 21:32:27 hrs, 21:33:04 hrs.
Call data records show that the user of the phone number 0700415952;
(that is Kasolo Coporiayamu), was based in Nateete, Busega areas and
635 was there on 28/08/2019 by 22:16:09hrs of the night the Kidnap was
committed and came back to the same location at 0336hrs on 29/08/2019
after the crimes were committed.
During the very night of 29/08/2019 at 02:28:20 hrs, the call data also
indicates that phone number 0700415952 (used by Kasolo Coporiayamu)
640 was in location captured by Airtel site Mast named ATL Mbuya (located at
Mbuya and covers areas of Kinawataka, Mbuya) when he received a
phone call from phone No. 0758111216 (used by Mpanga Sharif) who was
at location of Bweyogerere. Mbuya and Bweyogere are along the route
the suspects used that very night to go to Mukono where the victims were
645 allegedly murdered from and their bodies dumped.
With regard to A2, Lubega Johnson the Know Your Customer (KYC) details
shows that the 0788662014 number was registered in the names of
Emmanuel Mpiya under NIN CM87013103TNXF. This phone number (i.e.
0788662014) was recovered from Lubega Johnson on arrest.
650 Call data shows that the user of the number 0788662014 was based in
areas of Nateete, Busega and the number was used in itel handset of
three SIMCARD pots, specifically, SIMCARD pot IMEI no.
357360101817340. The second phone number used by Lubega Johnson
i.e. 0708373340 was also used in the same itel handset in SIMCARD pot
655 IMEI no. 357360101817350 which line Lubega always used to

18
 communicate to 0700415952 used by Kasolo Coporiyamu as per annexure
D of the report.
After Lubega was arrested on 8th September 2019, he used Phone No.
0708373340 to call Kasolo on phone No. 0706991311 while leading police
660 to arrest Kasolo Coporiayamu, at 23:08:00 hrs and 23:09:34 for 22 and
33 seconds respectively as per annexure D2 of the report.
The report revealed that Phone No. 0788662014 was inserted in the same
handset pot IMEI No. 357360101817340 on 21st August 2019 at
1:39:33PM and was used in the same handset up to 30th August 2019
665 when it was removed and re-inserted on 1st September 2019 then later
used until 9th September 2019 as per annexture D4 of the report. The
report also indicated that between 30th August 2019 and 1st September
2019, the line of the deceased Kitayimbwa was inserted in the same
handset in the pot where the phone No. 0788662014 was (i.e. IMEI No.
670 357360101817340).
The call data record of 0708373340 as per annexture marked “D2” of the
report shows that it was in the same itel handset with the phone number
of Kitayimbwa Ronald on 31/08/2019 at the time money was withdrawn
from it. IMEI print of this phone handset as per annexure marked “D3” of
675 the report indicates that the deceased Kitayimbwa’s line was inserted in
the handset Simcard pot IMEI No. 357360101817340 on 31st August 2019
at 7:48:32 AM to 1st September 2019 at 4:36:40PM.
The phone number 0700415952 used by Kasolo was inserted in the same
handset in simcard pot IMEI No. 357360101817360 on 1st September
680 2019 at 4:15:15PM to 1st September 7:15:34PM
While the line of Kitayimbwa (0755848732) was in the same handset (in
one of the simcard pots) as of 4:36:40PM, the line used by Kasolo
(0700415952) was inserted into the same handset (in a different simcard
pot) at 4:15:15PM.
685 Suffice it to say, from the data analysis report admitted as PEx 42, it
indicates that ‘the Simcard history of Kitayimbwa’s Line (i.e.
0755848732). It indicates that after the crime, his phone number was
inserted in phone handset IMEI no. 357360101817340 on 31/08/2019 at
07:48:32 AM to 1/09/2019 at 04:36:40 PM; during which money was
690 withdrawn from it on 31st August 2019 at 18:25 Hrs (This handset was
recovered from Lubega Johnson).’

19
 In respect of Kalyango Nasif A3, Know Your Customer particulars show
that the number 0753565028 was registered in the names of Nassuna
Robbina under NIN CF92098104MHAC. It was being used in handset imei
695 no. 358588088868220 recovered from Kalyango Nasifu on arrest.
Call data records show that the user of phone number 0753565028 was
based in areas of Nateete, Busega and had voice communications with
Kasolo Coporiyamu (0700415952), Katerega Sadat (0708190112), Lubega
Johnson (0708373340) and Mpanga Sharif (0758111216) after the crime.
700 For Mpanga Sharif A5, his Know Your Customer (KYC) details show that
the number 0758111216 was registered in the names of Mpanga Sharif
under NIN CM95045103MQNA.It was being used in phone handset IMEI
no. 351702096903980. Call data shows that the user was based in areas
of Nateete and Busega.
705 Mpanga Sharif (0758111216) while at the location of Nateete taxi park at
00:36:45 hrs on 29/08/2019 received a voice call from Kasolo Coporiyamu
(0700415952) who was at areas of Seyani. Seyani is an airtel mast at
Seyani Brothers Company along Ggaba road.
At 01:23:27 hrs on 29/08/2019, 0758111216 (used by Mpanga Sharif)
710 while at areas of Bweyogerere received a voice call from 0700415952
(used by Kasolo Coporiyamu) whose call was captured by the mast named
ATC Kibooba. Kibooba is a village in Mpoma parish, Nama subcounty
Mukono along Kayunga road.
0758111216 (used by Mpanga Sharif) moved that very night from areas
715 of Bweyogerere to areas of Lunguja Kosovo where he was at 03:36:04
hrs when he made another a voice call to Kasolo Coporiyamu
(0700415952) who was at areas of Busega at the time.
As for Katerega Sadat A6, PW21 obtained call data records of number
0708190112 was being used in phone handset IMEI no.
720 353737104489410. IMEI Print (ANNEXURE MARKED “G1) of IMEI no.
353737104489410 indicates that Kasolo used the same handset on 2nd
July 2019 from 11:34:22AM to 3rd July 2019 at 12:35:52PM. On the night
of the kidnap and murder, the phone number was in the areas of Nateete
and Lungujja from 28/08/2019 at 2030hrs to 29/08/2019 at 0538hrs.
725 PW21 stated that he established that after the eventual murder of
Nagirinya Maria and Kitayimbwa Ronald; Katerega Sadat and Kiseka
Hassan (Massadda) and Kalyango Nasif received back their colleagues

20
 Kasolo Coporiyamu, Lubega Johnson and Senabulya Isaac who had gone
to Mukono to complete the mission, and they all shared the money which
730 they had robbed from the deceased persons.
The conclusions from the above evidence of PW21 were that Lubega
Johnson (0708373340), Mpanga Sharif (0758111216), Kalyango Nasif
(0753565028), Fred (0706991311) and Katerega Sadat (0708190112)
had voice communications with Kasolo Coporiyamu (0700415952) before
735 during and after the crime.
Secondly that, during the 5hrs between 28/08/2019 at 2200hrs and
29/08/2019 at 0336hrs, Kasolo Compuriyamu moved from areas of
Nateete(Rubaga) to areas of Kibooba (Nama S/cty Mukono) and back to
Nateete. Within the same time, Mpanga Sharif moved from areas of
740 Nateete to areas of Bweyogerere and back to Nateete.
Thirdly that the phone number 0708373340 of Lubega Johnson was in the
same handset with Kitayimbwa Ronald’s phone number 0755848732 on
31/08/2019 at 1825hrs when money was withdrawn from it. The line used
by Kasolo (0700415952) was also used in the same handset while the line
745 of Kitayimbwa was still in.
I am aware that the evidence of the call data tendered in by PW21 is
purely of a circumstantial nature. Circumstantial evidence must be a
combination of facts creating a network through which there is no escape
for the accused, because the facts taken as a whole do no admit of any
750 inference but of his guilt. Circumstantial evidence should not only be
consistent with the guilt of the accused, but should not be consistent with
his innocence.
The way to deal with circumstantial evidence was stated in Topher V. R.
(1952) A.C. at Page 489 as follows: - “Circumstantial evidence must
755 always be narrowly examined, if only, because evidence of this
kind may be fabricated to cast suspicion on another. It is also
necessary before drawing the inference of the accused’s guilt
from circumstantial evidence to be sure that there are no other
co -existing circumstances which would weaken or destroy the
760 inference.”
A4 (Kiseka Hassan) opted to keep quiet. The implication of keeping silent
in a criminal trial was stated in the case of James Sawoabiri & Another
V. Uganda Criminal Appeal no. 5 of 1990 it was stated; “An
omission or neglect to challenge the evidence in chief on a
21
765 material or essential point by cross- examination would lead to
an inference that the evidence is accepted, subject to its being
assailed as inherently incredible or possibly untrue.”
It can be said that although the accused has a right to silence in criminal
proceedings, this silence is not absolute as an adverse inference can be
770 drawn when the accused fails to challenge the evidence of the prosecution
in cross examination. However, a conviction cannot be based on inference
alone drawn from silence. There must be some other evidence because
inference is weak evidence and it might be too easy to jump to wrong
conclusions. This means that inference must be backed by other types of
775 evidence.
Kalyanago Nassif (A3) in his evidence implicated A4 (Kiseka Hassan) and
stated that it was him Kiseka Hassan (A4) who brought A1, A2 and PW9
to him on the night and asked him to carry them. There was also evidence
from PW21 who stated that A1(Kasolo Coporiyamu) mentioned A4(Kiseka
780 Hassan) as a part of the people involved in the commission of the alleged
offences and that A4 was evasive at the time he was arrested. I find A4
(Kiseka Hassan) culpable in the absence of any explanation.
Kasolo Coporiyamu (A1), Lubega Johnson (A2), put up the defense of
alibi. This was however only brought up at the point they were giving their
785 defense evidence. At no point in time was any of the prosecution
witnesses cross- examined on the alleged defenses of alibi. Neither did
they raise this defense in their police statements or even notify the
magistrate at the stage of committal to the High Court.

790 In the case of Festo Androa Asenwa and Another vs. Uganda SC
Crim App. No. 1 of 1998, the Supreme Court held among other things
that “if an accused does not bring forward the defence of alibi until months
afterwards, there is naturally a doubt as to whether he/she has not been
preparing it in the interval. To raise the alibi at the earliest opportunity,
795 gives the prosecution an opportunity to inquire into the defense.

It is my considered view that where an accused person fails to give notice

to the prosecution and the court of his intention to rely on the defense of
alibi before the hearing of the case or fails to furnish particulars of the
800 defense of alibi to the prosecution before the close of the case for the

22
 prosecution, as it was in this case, the Court has discretion not to accord
weight to that defense.

Be that as it may the prosecution adduced sufficient evidence discrediting

805 the defense of Alibi raised by Kasolo Coporiyamu (A1), Lubega Johnson
(A2). The prosecution through the evidence of PW9, and defense
witnesses of A3, A5 squarely placed Kasolo Coporiyamu (A1), Lubega
Johnson (A2) at the scene of the crime. The prosecution also adduced
evidence which directly contradicted A1 and A2’s testimonies that they
810 were in some other place.

With regard to Kalyango Nasif (A3) and Mpanga Sharif (A5) they admitted
that on the night, they carried A1, A2, and PW9 to the scene of crime
where Nagirinya Maria and Kitayimbwa Ronald were kidnapped from. A5
815 admitted to having seen A1 in a vehicle which had stopped them. He
admitted having carried A1, A2 and PW9 while A3 also admitted to having
carried A1, and A2.

Ssenabulya Isaac (PW9) also stated that after the commission of the
820 alleged offences, they met with Kasolo Coporiyamu (A1), Lubega Johnson
(A2), Kalyango Nasif (A3) and Mpanga Sharif (A5) in the early morning of
29th August 2019 and they shared the proceeds of crime.

I am unable to believe that Kalyango Nasif (A3) and Mpanga Sharif (A5)
825 were merely transporting Kasolo Coporiyamu (A1), Lubega Johnson (A2)
and Ssenabulya Isaac (PW9) and that their motives were not known to
them. Why then would they communicate with strangers and meet up to
share the proceeds with A1, A2 and PW9 if they were ordinary boda boda
men. The circumstantial evidence of the call data records, their own
830 admissions coupled with the evidence of PW9 points to a deliberate
scheme orchestrated by them.
I find that the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses specifically
PW9, and defense witnesses of A3 and A5 destroys the alibi of A1 and A2.
The alibi set up by the A1 and A2 is false. I find that the each of the
835 accused persons. Kasolo Coporiyamu (A1), Lubega Johnson (A2),
Kalyango Nasif (A3), Kiseka Hassan (A4) and Mpanga Sharif (A5)
participated in the commission of the said offences.

23
 To convict the accused persons on the joint charges, there must be proof
of a common intention held by all the accused persons at the time the
840 offenses were committed.
Section 20 of the Penal Code Act provides that,
When two or more persons form a common intention to
prosecute an unlawful purpose in conjunction with one another,
and in the prosecution of that purpose an offence is committed
845 of such a nature that its commission was a probable
consequence of the prosecution of that purpose, each of them is
deemed to have committed the offence.
Common intention is the meeting of the mind of the accused persons
which is necessary to be present in joint charges. However, common
850 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/act. However, it should be noted that the mere presence of the
accused person in the scene of crime is not final and conclusive prove of
common intention.
855 In the case of Kasumba Kenneth & others vs Uganda CoA Criminal
Appeal No. 23 of 2016 it was stated that in order to make the doctrine
of common intention applicable it must be shown that the accused had
shared with the perpetrator of the crime a common intention to pursue a
specific unlawful purpose which led to the commission of the offence. If
860 this can be shown, then the doctrine of common intention would apply
irrespective of whether the offence committed was the one intended or
not. The court also emphasized that it is now settled that an unlawful
common intention does not imply a pre- arranged plan.
Amongst Kasolo Coporiyamu (A1), Lubega Johnson (A2), Kalyango Nasif
865 (A3), Kiseka Hassan (A4) and Mpanga Sharif (A5) none of them
disassociated themselves from the alleged offences. None of them
reported the incidents to police. But rather they all went into hiding until
they were arrested. They were in direct communication at all times and
even shared the proceeds from the crime. Kasolo Coporiyamu (A1),
870 Lubega Johnson (A2), Kalyango Nasif (A3), Kiseka Hassan (A4) and
Mpanga Sharif (A5) are culpable for all the offences of Kidnap, aggravated
robbery and murder even if they may not all have been at all the scenes
where all the said offences occurred. What is vital is that the acts of the

24
 accused persons were done in pursuance of a criminal purpose held in
875 common between them.
I have also considered the conduct of the accused persons after the
commission of the offences. Frank Nyakairu (PW8) in his evidence
described in great detail the chaotic atmosphere under which A1 was
arrested. That it involved fist fighting between A1 and the security officers
880 who arrested him and that it was rough and as a result, A1 sustained
injuries captioned in PEx 3. A4(Kiseka Hassan) was also evasive at the
time of his arrest. This information was supported by PW21, the
investigating officer. The court may in some instances determine the
culpability of an accused persons by considering the conduct of the
885 accused before and after the act.
In the case of Uganda VS Sunday Herbert High Court Criminal Case
No.162 of 2021, it was stated that ‘The conduct of the accused can
corroborate the complainant’s testimony. For example, if the conduct of
the accused indicates a sense of guilt on his part; such as escaping from
890 arrest or running away. That can add strength to the prosecution case.
I have noted the deliberate untruthfulness in the evidence of A1 and A2
when they denied knowing PW9 A3 and A5 while A3 and A5 and PW9
demonstrated to court through their evidence that they were together
that night. A1 and A2 also lied when the claimed that they were tortured
895 while in custody and that they were tortured by PW9 who was police
officer yet they knew him before and he was an accomplice.
They lied when they claimed not to have talked or coordinated with any
of the accused persons on phone yet the call data records in the Data
analysis report tendered by PW21 indicated that they were in constant
900 touch. There is sufficient evidence that A1 participated in the preparation,
planning of the offences committed by them. Lies are inconsistent with
innocence. Proved lies can be used to corroborate prosecution evidence.
See: Juma Ramadhan Vs Republic Cr. App. No. 1 of 1973
(unreported)
905 With regard to Katerega Sadat A6, I find that there was no evidence to
show that he participated in the events that led to the commission of the
alleged offences. Except for his close association with Kasolo Coporiyamu
A1, there was no sufficient evidence to show that he participated in the
planning and execution of the alleged offences. The call data records

25
910 tendered by PW21 indicated that their communication with Kasolo
Coporiyamu (A1) was way before the offenses were committed.
Neither was he identified by any of the witnesses as having participated
in the commission of the said offences. Other than PW8 who states that
he was arrested as a result of human intelligence, the evidence of PW21
915 did not directly link him to the participation. Although he was mentioned
by A1 in his charge and caution, there was no other independent evidence
linking him to the alleged offences.
I find that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the
Kasolo Coporiyamu (A1), Lubega Johnson (A2), Kalyango Nasif (A3),
920 Kiseka Hassan (A4) and Mpanga Sharif (A5) participated in the
commission the said offences. There was sufficient evidence corroborating
the evidence of PW9, A3 and A5 who were accomplices. A3 positively
identified A1, A2, PW9 and A4. A5 positively identified A1, A2, PW9, and
A3.
925 There was also other evidence of call data records, the evidence of PW21
the communication matrix, scene reconstruction video and the charge and
caution Statement of A1(Kasolo Coporiyamu) which indicates that at all
times the accused persons acted together and were in constant
communication with each other, and shared the proceeds from the crime,
930 while A1, A2, and PW9 directly committed the alleged offenses in this
case.
In the result, Kasolo Coporiyamu (A1), Lubega Johnson (A2), Kalyango
Nasif (A3), Kiseka Hassan (A4) and Mpanga Sharif (A5) are accordingly
convicted as charged. Katerega Sadat (A6) is acquitted and should be set
935 free unless being held on other lawful charges.
I so find.
JUDGE
19/10/2023.

940

26
945

950

955

27