Wakilii

Karorero David v Uganda (Cr.App.No.KAB-00-CR-CN-0004-2000 ) (Cr.App.No.KAB-00-CR-CN-0004-2000)

High Court · [2002] UGHC 83 · 2002 Conviction Quashed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal appeal from conviction by Grade 1 Magistrate at Kisoro Court
Decision
Appellant acquitted

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

Held that a conviction based on a visit to the locus in quo cannot stand where the trial court failed to comprehensively record the visit and evidence from all parties. The High Court quashed convictions for criminal trespass and removing boundary marks, finding insufficient evidence that the offence occurred on the complainant's land and that the plants cut were actual boundary marks.

Outcome

Appellant acquitted

Facts

The appellant was convicted by the Grade 1 Magistrate at Kisoro Court in July 2000 of criminal trespass contrary to section 286(a) of the Penal Code and removing boundary marks with intent to defraud contrary to section 318 of the Penal Code. The particulars stated that on 4th November 1999, the appellant entered upon the land of Ndangari Isaac with intent to annoy him. PW 11 was the only prosecution witness who testified to witnessing the cutting of boundary marks by the appellant. Other witnesses were merely told what transpired. The trial court visited the locus in quo and referred to L.C. Court judgments. The appellant was sentenced to a fine of Shs.50,000/= on each count or three months imprisonment in default on each count.

Issues

  1. Whether the conviction for criminal trespass was properly proved where the trial magistrate's visit to the locus in quo was insufficiently detailed.
  2. Whether the conviction for removing boundary marks with intent to defraud was properly proved in the absence of adequate evidence that the plants cut were actual boundary marks.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • Conviction quashed.
  • Sentence set aside.
  • Appellant acquitted.

Rules and key headnotes

Evidence — Locus in Quo — Requirements for Reliance on Court Visit
A visit to the locus in quo must be recorded comprehensively and must show recording of evidence from all parties concerned if it is to be relied upon in reaching a decision.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Criminal Trespass — Proof of Elements
A conviction for criminal trespass cannot be sustained where there is no adequate basis for determining that the accused trespassed on the complainant's land, particularly where the trial court's visit to the locus in quo was insufficiently detailed.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Boundary Marks — Elements of Offence
For a conviction for removing boundary marks with intent to defraud, the prosecution must prove that the plants or objects cut were actual boundary marks, that they were cut unlawfully, and that the cutting was done with intent to defraud.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (1)

  • James Nsibambi v Lovinsa Nankya [1980] HCB 81

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Karorero David v Uganda (Cr.App.No.KAB-00-CR-CN-0004-2000 ) (Cr.App.No.KAB-00-CR-CN-0004-2000) [2002] UGHC 83 (19 February 2002)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.