Court Overturns Death Sentences in Bukoba Murder Case

Legal Flaws Lead to Reversal of Death Sentences in Bukoba Case

March 18, 2025

The Court of Appeal has overturned the conviction and death sentence of three Bukoba residents, citing legal irregularities in the trial proceedings. The ruling mandates a retrial at the High Court.

The decision followed an appeal filed by Renatus Misagalo, Mwendapole Andrea, and Kalenzi Ruhinda, who had been sentenced to death for the murder of their neighbor, David Mbilahisha. The initial trial was conducted at the Bukoba Resident Magistrate’s Court, which ultimately handed down the death penalty.

A panel of three appellate judges—Stella Mugasha, Abraham Mwampashi, and Paul Ngwembe—reviewed the case and identified critical procedural errors. The ruling, delivered on March 13, 2025, emphasized that the transfer of the case to the magistrate’s court was flawed, as the presiding magistrate lacked the legal authority to hear a murder case.

Procedural Irregularities and Retrial Order

Justice Mwampashi highlighted that the case transfer process was legally deficient, rendering the entire trial, including its judgment and orders, null and void. The judges deliberated on whether a retrial was warranted and referred to a precedent set by the East African Court of Appeal in the Fatehali Manji v. Republic case. That precedent established that retrials should only be ordered when the original proceedings were legally defective or contained significant irregularities.

Taking into account the principles of justice and case-specific circumstances, the judges ruled that the case should return to the High Court for a fresh hearing. They instructed that the retrial be expedited, while the appellants remain in custody pending the new proceedings.

Incident and Initial Conviction

The murder in question occurred on January 29, 2017, in Rulenge Village, Ngara District, Kagera Region. According to court records, the deceased, David Mbilahisha, was attacked at his home while sleeping alongside his children, including witness Deus David. Deus testified that he recognized the assailants due to the illumination from solar-powered lights in the house and their familiarity as neighbors.

The accused, however, denied any involvement, asserting that they were merely present at the victim’s funeral to mourn their neighbor’s passing.

Appeal and Legal Argumentation

During the appeal, the defendants were represented by lawyer Samwel Angelo, who argued that the High Court had improperly transferred the case under Section 45(2) of the Magistrates’ Courts Act. He referred the court to pages 28 and 35 of the appeal record, demonstrating that the case file had been reassigned illegally.

Angelo asserted that the transfer violated the legal provisions under Section 256A(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act (CPA), which governs the reassignment of criminal cases from the High Court to specially authorized magistrates. Due to this legal breach, he contended that the presiding magistrate had no jurisdiction over the case, rendering the trial proceedings unlawful. Consequently, he requested the court to nullify both the conviction and the sentence and grant his clients immediate release.

The prosecution acknowledged the procedural mistake in transferring the case from the High Court to the magistrate’s court. However, they disagreed with the defense's request for outright acquittal, arguing that the appropriate course of action was to order a retrial.

Ultimately, the Court of Appeal ruled in favor of a retrial, affirming that justice required a new hearing at the High Court level.