Wakilii

Uganda v Buchanayandi Godfrey and Others (Criminal Session No. 0057 of 2023)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 334 · 2025 Conviction Entered AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance criminal trial arising from Kisoro Chief Magistrate's Court committal proceedings
Decision
All five accused persons convicted on the charges preferred against them

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 the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt all elements of rape against A1 and A3, attempted rape against A2, and simple robbery against all five accused. The victim's identification evidence was credible, corroborated by eyewitness and medical testimony. A1 directly committed rape; A3 aided and abetted under sections 19(1)(b) and 20 of the Penal Code Act by removing the victim's undergarments, subduing her, and acting in furtherance of the common unlawful purpose. A2 committed attempted rape by lowering his trousers and positioning himself to rape the victim before being interrupted. All five accused participated in simple robbery under the doctrine of common intention. The defence of alibi was rejected as incredible. Convictions entered on all counts.

Outcome

All five accused persons convicted on the charges preferred against them

Facts

On 22 February 2023 at approximately 2:00 PM, the victim IJ was walking behind Tour Land Cottages in Kisoro Municipality when she encountered six men, five of whom are the accused. The men blocked her path and demanded she greet them. After she complied by fist bumping each accused, they asked her if she was ready to have sexual intercourse, to which she refused. One slapped her on the cheek. The group then assaulted her with punches, took her mobile phone valued at UGX 50,000, and carried her into a nearby bean garden. There, A3 removed her undergarments, A2 and A3 pulled up her dress, and A1 lowered his trousers and raped her while the others held her down. A2 and A3 struggled to also rape her. A2 had lowered his trousers and opened his belt when Besigye Sabiiti (PW2) responded to the victim's alarm and arrived at the scene, finding one accused still on top of the victim. The accused fled but Besigye arrested A2 at the scene. A2 disclosed the names of his accomplices, who were subsequently arrested by police. Medical examination confirmed the victim had been in her menstrual cycle and suffered hymenal rupture consistent with penetrative sexual intercourse.

Issues

  1. Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that sexual intercourse occurred with the victim IJ.
  2. Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the victim IJ did not consent to the sexual intercourse.
  3. Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused persons A1 (Buchanayandi Godfrey) and A3 (Bizimana Derrick Davis) participated in the rape of the victim.
  4. Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused person A2 (Duhimbaze Gilbert) intended to have carnal knowledge of the victim and performed an overt act constituting attempted rape.
  5. Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that theft of the victim's mobile phone occurred with use of actual violence.
  6. Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that all five accused persons participated in the simple robbery.
  7. Whether the defence of alibi raised by the accused persons was credible.

Orders

  • Buchanayandi Godfrey (A1) found guilty of rape contrary to sections 123 and 124 of the Penal Code Act and convicted.
  • Bizimana Derrick Davis (A3) found guilty of rape contrary to sections 123 and 124 of the Penal Code Act and convicted.
  • Duhimbaze Gilbert (A2) found guilty of attempted rape contrary to section 125 of the Penal Code Act and convicted.
  • All five accused persons (A1, A2, A3, A4, A5) found guilty of simple robbery contrary to sections 285 and 286(1) of the Penal Code Act and convicted.

Rules and key headnotes

Rape — Proof of Sexual Intercourse — Direct and Circumstantial Evidence
The act of sexual intercourse or penetration may be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence or other evidence, and though desirable it is not a hard and fast rule that the victim's evidence must always be adduced in every case, provided such evidence is sufficient to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
Identification — Conditions for Correct Identification — Familiarity, Lighting, Proximity, Duration
For correct identification, the following conditions are necessary: familiarity of the accused to the witness at the time of the offence, conditions of lighting, proximity of the accused to the witness at the scene of the crime, and the length of time the accused came under the observation of the witness, even where the witness met the accused for the first time provided the encounter was prolonged and in good lighting conditions.
Rape — Joint Enterprise — Aiding and Abetting — Common Intention
Where two or more persons form a common intention to prosecute an unlawful purpose and in the prosecution of that purpose an offence is committed of such a nature that its commission was a probable consequence of prosecuting that purpose, each of them is deemed to have committed the offence under section 20 of the Penal Code Act, and a person who aids and abets a rape by subduing the victim, removing her clothing, and holding her down is guilty of rape even if he did not himself have sexual intercourse with the victim.
Attempted Rape — Overt Act — Lowering Trousers and Positioning to Commit Rape
An accused commits attempted rape under section 359(1) of the Penal Code Act when, intending to commit rape, he begins to put his intention into execution by means adapted to its fulfilment and manifests his intention by some overt act, such as lowering his trousers and positioning himself to have sexual intercourse with the victim before being interrupted.
Corroboration — Sexual Offences — Practice of Seeking Corroborative Evidence
It is a matter of practice that courts in cases involving sexual offences will always look for corroboration of the victim's evidence.
Simple Robbery — Common Intention — Joint Participants
Where accused persons act in concert to rob a victim with actual violence, all participants are bound by the doctrine of common intention under section 20 of the Penal Code Act, and it is immaterial that only one accused physically received the stolen item, provided none of them disassociated themselves from the actions of the others.
Conduct of Accused — Flight as Evidence of Guilt
The conduct of an accused before or after the offence in question may give an insight into whether he participated in the crime, and fleeing upon seeing security personnel points irresistibly to guilt.

Legislation cited (10)

Cases cited (7)

  • Ssekitoleko v Uganda (1961) EA 531
  • Bassita Hussein v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 35 of 1995)
  • Abdalla Bin Wendo v R (1953) 20 EACA 166
  • Bukenya Joseph v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 2017)
  • Chila and Another v Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 80 of 1967)
  • Queen v Harder (1956) CSR 489
  • Rex v Tubere s/o Ochen (1945) 12 EACA 63

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Uganda v Buchanayandi Godfrey and Others (Criminal Session No. 0057 of 2023) [2025] UGHC 334 (19 February 2025)
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.