Wakilii

Uganda v Barisigara (Criminal Session Case 39 of 1991)

High Court · [1991] UGHC 44 · 1991 Acquittal Entered AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance criminal trial by indictment on murder charge
Decision
Accused acquitted and discharged on finding of no case to answer

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

The High Court acquitted the accused of murder under s.71(1) of the Trial On Indictments Decree 1971, finding no case to answer. The sole eyewitness could not identify the accused at an identification parade and testified she could not be sure the accused was the attacker. There was no evidence implicating the accused in the murder of Rev. Sister Monika Bebwa.

Outcome

Accused acquitted and discharged on finding of no case to answer

Facts

On 22 August 1988, at Rushoroza Catholic Mission in Kabale District, Rev. Sister Monika Bebwa was shot and killed by intruders. Rev. Sister Mary Rose Creegan, who shared the residence with the deceased, witnessed the attack. She heard the gate creak, saw men outside, and fled with the deceased to the chapel. The deceased was shot at close range; Sister Creegan was also shot in the arm. Two men entered the house, one armed with a gun and dressed in an army overcoat, the other armed with a panga. They demanded money and took property. Sister Creegan could not identify the attackers. Two weeks later, at Kabale Police Station, she was shown 20 persons and one person from a cell. She testified that one man matched the height of the attacker but she could not be sure he was the same person because he was dressed differently. The accused was indicted for murder but was not implicated by the eyewitness.

Issues

  1. Whether there was sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case that the accused committed the offence of murder.
  2. Whether the prosecution's sole eyewitness had identified the accused as one of the attackers.

Orders

  • Accused acquitted.
  • Finding of not guilty recorded.

Rules and key headnotes

No Case to Answer — Test under Trial On Indictments Decree 1971 s.71(1)
Where at the close of the prosecution case there is no sufficient evidence that the accused committed the offence, the court is obliged under s.71(1) of the Trial On Indictments Decree 1971 to record a finding of not guilty after hearing submissions from both prosecution and defence.
Identification Evidence — Failure to Identify Accused at Identification Parade
Where the sole eyewitness to a crime cannot identify the accused at an identification parade and testifies that she could not be sure the accused was the attacker, there is no evidence implicating the accused and the prosecution case must fail.
Duty of Prosecution — Offering No Further Evidence
Where the prosecution's evidence does not implicate the accused, the proper course is for the State Attorney to offer no further evidence, and the court will acquit.

Legislation cited (3)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Uganda v Barisigara (Criminal Session Case 39 of 1991) [1991] UGHC 44 (30 September 1991)
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.