Wakilii

Uganda v Bullu (Criminal Case 105 of 1992)

High Court · [1993] UGHC 48 · 1993 Acquittal Entered AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Submission of no case to answer in a first instance criminal prosecution for aggravated robbery
Decision
Accused acquitted and released from custody

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

Submission of no case to answer upheld and accused acquitted. The prosecution failed to prove the accused participated in the robbery. The accused was never identified at the scene by any witness. Evidence of alleged participation rested on hearsay statements by an accomplice who was not before the court and required corroboration. The stolen goods recovered from the accused's house were items that could easily pass from hand to hand. No evidence of guilty knowledge was adduced. No reasonable tribunal could convict on the evidence presented.

Outcome

Accused acquitted and released from custody

Facts

On 29 October 1990 at around 9:00 p.m., robbers attacked Pascal Ntale's shop at Kwizinga village, Masaka District. The robbers, at least one dressed in army uniform and armed with a gun, another armed with a panga, cut Ntale on the head and arm, demanded and took 75,000 shillings cash, and stole various shop goods including sugar, soap, radio cells, and a cassette radio worth 25,000 shillings. Joseph Lubega, running a neighbouring bar, was also robbed of beer sales proceeds and a radio cassette by the same robbers who fired shots. None of the prosecution witnesses recognised the robbers. Four days later, following information, villagers and local authorities searched the home of James Nakana at Busenze village and recovered a gun and some stolen items. A search of the accused Bullu Kawooya's father's home yielded items including protex soap, ointment, and according to some witnesses a radio cassette. Nakana was said to have implicated Bullu during interrogation but Nakana subsequently escaped and was not before the court. The accused was arrested on 2 November 1990 and charged with aggravated robbery.

Issues

  1. Whether the prosecution established a prima facie case of aggravated robbery requiring the accused to enter a defence.
  2. Whether the prosecution proved that the accused participated in the commission of aggravated robbery.
  3. Whether the doctrine of recent possession applied to infer the accused's guilt from possession of allegedly stolen goods.

Orders

  • Submission of no case to answer upheld.
  • Accused acquitted of aggravated robbery contrary to Penal Code Act s.272 and s.275(2).
  • Accused to be released from custody forthwith unless held for any other cognisable offence.

Rules and key headnotes

No Case to Answer — Prima Facie Case Test
A submission of no case to answer may be properly made and upheld where the prosecution has not adduced evidence to establish one of the essential ingredients of the offence, or where the prosecution evidence has been so discredited as a result of cross-examination or is manifestly so unreliable that no reasonable tribunal could safely convict on it.
Aggravated Robbery — Essential Ingredients
To prove aggravated robbery under sections 272 and 275(2) of the Penal Code Act, the prosecution must establish: (a) theft as per section 272; (b) violence of one form; (c) use or threatened use of a deadly weapon during the commission of the theft; and (d) that the accused participated in the commission of the crime.
Hearsay Evidence — Accomplice Statements
Statements made by an accomplice who is not before the court and has escaped constitute hearsay evidence. Even if admissible, accomplice evidence requires corroboration before a conviction can be founded on it.
Recent Possession of Stolen Goods — Doctrine and Limitations
The doctrine of recent possession raises a rebuttable presumption that a person found in possession of stolen goods soon after the theft is either the thief or guilty receiver unless he can account for his possession. What constitutes recent possession depends on the nature of the property and all circumstances of the case, including whether the property readily passes from hand to hand and the accused's trade or occupation. Evidence of receiving stolen property is the weakest of its kind, and the prosecution must prove guilty knowledge.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (10)

  • Eryazi Kasaija HCCS No. 99/90
  • Kadiru Kyanju and others
  • Uganda v Alfred Ateu (1974) HCB 170
  • Ramulal Bhatt v R [1977] EA
  • Wabilo alias Musa Vs. R EAR P 84
  • Opoya v Uganda [1967] EA 175
  • Kamusime and others v Uganda (1976) HCB 159
  • Pwamunyono criminal case No. 59/83
  • Wasaja and Bivunbi's case
  • R v Hassan S/o Mohammed (1948) 15 EACA 199

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Uganda v Bullu (Criminal Case 105 of 1992) [1993] UGHC 48 (12 October 1993)
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.