Download

Uganda Judgment

HC: Criminal Division (Uganda)

Uganda v Okine (HCT-09-CR-SC-0101-2013) [2017] UGHCCRD 88 (11 April 2017)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The court found that the accused, after being refused money by his wife, assaulted her in a fit of anger, kicking her in the abdomen and causing fatal internal injuries. The evidence from two eyewitnesses, who were closely related to the accused and deceased, established his identity and participation beyond reasonable doubt. The court determined that the killing was not premeditated and lacked malice aforethought, as there was no evidence of planning or intent to cause death. The circumstances indicated a spontaneous loss of temper and provocation, fitting the partial defence of provocation. Therefore, the accused was found guilty of manslaughter under Section 187 of the Penal Code Act, rather than murder.

Court disposition

convicted of manslaughter

Orders

  • The accused is convicted of manslaughter under Section 187 of the Penal Code Act.

02

Material facts

Parties

Uganda

Applicant

Okine Andrew Charles

Defendant

Amounts and remedies

  • Money Demanded by Accused: UGX 2,000

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Criminal Law / Judgment

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The prosecution argued that the accused assaulted his wife after she refused to give him money for alcohol, resulting in her death from internal injuries. Witnesses placed the accused at the scene and described the assault, asserting that the accused's actions directly caused the fatal injuries.
Respondent
The accused denied involvement, claiming ignorance of the events and stating he was suffering from epilepsy at the time. He did not raise intoxication as a defence and offered no alternative explanation for the death.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Section 187 Penal Code Act

    Manslaughter is committed when a person unlawfully causes the death of another without malice aforethought, often due to provocation or in the heat of passion.

  2. 02

    Sections 188 and 189 Penal Code Act

    Malice aforethought requires evidence of intent to kill or cause grievous harm, which was not established in this case.

  3. 03

    Ugandan criminal jurisprudence

    Proper identification of the accused by credible witnesses is essential for conviction.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The court found that the accused, after being refused money by his wife, assaulted her in a fit of anger, kicking her in the abdomen and causing fatal internal injuries. The evidence from two eyewitnesses, who were closely related to the accused and deceased, established his identity and participation beyond reasonable doubt. The court determined that the killing was not premeditated and lacked malice aforethought, as there was no evidence of planning or intent to cause death. The circumstances indicated a spontaneous loss of temper and provocation, fitting the partial defence of provocation. Therefore, the accused was found guilty of manslaughter under Section 187 of the Penal Code Act, rather than murder.

Obiter and limits

  • The accused's failure to control his temper in the heat of passion led to the tragic outcome.
  • There was no evidence of mistaken identity, as the witnesses were well acquainted with the accused.
  • The accused did not raise intoxication as a defence, and his consumption of alcohol did not affect the court's findings.

Court disposition

convicted of manslaughter

  • The accused is convicted of manslaughter under Section 187 of the Penal Code Act.

Source and reliance status

HC: Criminal Division (Uganda)

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Source document

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

HC: Criminal Division (Uganda)

Judgment

[2017] UGHCCRD 88

THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA

HOLDEN AT SOROTI

HCT-09-CR-SC-0101-2013

UGANDA::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::PROSECUTOR

*VERSUS*

OKINE ANDREW CHARLES:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::ACCUSED

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HON. MR. JUSTICE BATEMA N. D. A, JUDGE

JUDGMENT

OKINE ANDREW CHARLES stands indicated with one count of Manslaughter C/S 187 of the Penal Code Act. This amendment was ordered by Court after hearing prosecution evidence on charges of murder C/S 188 and 189 of the Penal Code Act. It was alleged that the accused murdered his wife Aanyu Angella on the 12th day of November, 2012 at Bisina village in Katakwi district.

At the trial it had been agreed upon that the deceased died an unlawful death with malice aforethought. It is only the participation of the accused that had been denied. Upon hearing the evidence from prosecution witnesses this Court concluded that it discloses a case of Manslaughter and ordered the prosecution to amend the charges indictment accordingly and put the accused to his defence.

It was the admitted prosecution evidence of a post mortem report that proved beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased died of the sudden rapture of the Liver and Spleen which lead to excessive internal bleeding (exhibit PE1).

The sudden rapture of the Liver and Spleen was traced to the assault the deceased received from the accused. PW1 Elungat Gregory told Court that the accused was annoyed with his wife (the deceased) for refusing to give him Shs. 2,000/= for drinking alcohol. The accused wanted to entertain PW1 as his special guest but did not have money. PW1 said the accused thought of selling his cock to raise the money for drinks but he (PW1) offered to buy the drinks. As they walked away to go to the drinking place the accused stopped a few meters away and returned to assault his wife. The couple fought and the accused wrestled his wife to the ground. He kicked her in the lower parts of the abdomen as the witness and another OLIWA Anna Margret tried to stop the fight. When the accused kicked his wife she fell down and died instantly.

PW2 OLIWA Ann Margret was a daughter in-law of the fighting couple. She was seated with her mother-in-law when he asked for money to drink and she refused. She gave evidence similar to that of Elungat (PW1). She told Court that the accused walked away with PW1 and stopped a few meters away. He looked back and saw the deceased laughing with her daughter in-law and returned to fight his wife. That her efforts with Elungat to stop the fight bore no fruit. The accused kicked the wife in the lower parts of the abdomen and she fell down and died on the spot.

My opinion and that of the two assessors is that the accused was properly identified by the witnesses. He was not a stranger to them. The witnesses were a close friend and a daughter in-law living together with the accused. There was nothing like mistaken identity. My opinion is that the decease died of the sudden rapture of the Liver and Spleen arising from the kicks she got from the accused.

The accused made a plain statement denying the offence. He said he knew nothing about the allegations because he was suffering from epilepsy.

I reject that defence. He was properly placed at the scene of crime by the prosecution evidence. He was normal although he had tested some alcohol. Fortunately he did not raise the defence of intoxication. He knew very well what he wanted from the wife, Shs. 2,000/= for drinking with his friend Elungat. When he was not given that money he got annoyed. He even thought of selling his cock but it disappeared in the bush as it was being chased.

I want to believe that he felt humiliated when he was offered a drink by the very visitor he had wanted to entertain. He got more annoyed to see his wife and daughter in-law (PW2) laughing thinking that they were laughing at him because of his inability to buy drinks for his visitor. Instead of bearing it as a way of life to have no money, he took it for an insult and fought his wife.

From the flow of events where an angry husband kicks a wife and she suddenly falls dead, I would hesitate to rule that he did it with malice aforethought. There is no evidence of a planned murder or hitting of sensitive parts of the body with foreseeable consequences. This was spontaneous loss of temper. Failure to control one’s self and causing death in the heat of passion fits squarely in the partial defence of provocation. This accused person killed his wife but without malice aforethought.

In the circumstances, I convict the accused of Manslaughter C/S 187 of the Penal Code Act.

Judge

11/04/2017

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Section 187 Penal Code Act

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Sections 188 and 189 Penal Code Act

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this JurisAssist collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.