Beautiful Jackline Uwera Nsenga, the widow to fallen city businessman Juvenal Nsenga still maintains her innocence as she starts her final legal battle to retain her freedom after being convicted and sentenced to 20 years imprisonment by the Criminal Division of the High Court and the Court of Appeal respectively on charges of killing her husband.
On Thursday, Nsenga appeared before Supreme Court justice Christopher Madrama and was told to file her memorandum of appeal and submissions by 3rd July 2023.
Sam Oola, the Senior Assistant Director of Public Prosecution who represented Justice Jane Frances Abodo, the Director for Public Prosecution (DPP) was directed to respond to Nsenga’s appeal on 10th July 2023.
Nsenga insist that the Criminal Division of the High Court judge Duncan Gasagwa and Court of Appeal Justices led by then Deputy Chief Justice, who is currently the Chief Justice Alfonse Owiny Dollo, Justice Elizabeth Musoke and Justice Cheborion Barishaki erred in law and fact to convict and sentence her.
She maintains that on the 10th January 2013 at Plot 6 Muzindalo Road, Bugolobi Nakawa Division in Kampala District, she never caused the death of her beloved husband Nsenga.
Witnesses told Court that on the fateful day, at around 9pm, the appellant returned home and parked the car she was driving outside the gate and waited for time before going on to press the bell for their gate.
When her husband came to open for her, she started the car and overrun the deceased.
The deceased didn’t die immediately even though he suffered a lot of injuries. He was picked by the appellant with assistance from other people at home and taken to Paragon hospital in Bugolobi where he breathed his last.
She further claims that both courts erred in law and facts to base her conviction and sentencing on the evidence of PW8 Munaku John Bosco, the scene of crimes officer, and PW10 Professor Mwakali, who were both involved in the reconstruction of the relevant incident at the scene of crime.
She insists that PW10 told lies to court that the terrain was flat both on the inside and outside of the gate where she is being accused of committing a crime from.
PW8 testified that the horizontal bolt of the gate was bent and there were blue paint marks on the gate as a result of the car hitting the gate.
She notes that the evidence given by PW11 Mugimba Andrew, the Inspector of Vehicles who found out that none of the vehicle systems at the time of inspection were found defective was a lie.
In his view, Mugimba told the Court that the accident where the deceased was killed was intentional because if it was not intentional the floor mat/carpet could not have caused any accidental acceleration.
He added that the vehicle was in good mechanical condition after the collision and was fitted with modern gadgets, including obstacle sensors and automatic braking system.
There is no evidence to suggest that the vehicle was defective in any way before the incident.
The above evidence however was not contested by the appellant because the motor vehicle used in the murder was in proper mechanical condition and the appellant used the said motor vehicle to knock and move the deceased’s body for a distance of approximately 17.3 meters.
The appellant is also contesting the evidence of Donat Kananura who told court that the deceased made a dying declaration that his wife had killed him. PW3 claimed that Nsenga told him that Jackie had knocked him and it was not the gate.
He further said that there is nothing else he told him since he had told him that the wife had knocked him.
Joseph Kananura, another witness also testified about the dying declaration. He told court that the deceased told him that his wife had killed him at his own home.
She also protests the evidence brought against her that there was a grudge arising from allegations of an extra-marital affair in their marriage.
Court based on the evidence of PW7 who told court that the appellant confronted him with the deceased and angrily issued the statement and the incident in which the deceased was killed happened only twelve days later.
The trial Court also considered marital acrimony as one of the pieces of circumstantial evidence offering corroboration to the dying declaration and the 32 threat.
Witnesses added that the couple had lived an estranged life, slept in separate bedrooms, neither greeted each other nor discussed or did things together as husband and wife although the deceased provided for the accused and the family.
They further allege that the accused merely tried to paint a very good and rosy picture of the marriage that they slept in the same bedroom, save for when the deceased was drunk and communicated to each other as husband and wife.
The couple was married between 1994 and 2013 and were gifted with two children. The appellant insists that she cannot intentionally kill the father of her children.
By Sengooba Alirabaki
Leave a Reply