Wakilii

Uganda v Kudaba Badilu (Criminal Sessions Case 259 of 1994)

High Court · [1995] UGHC 141 · 1995 Accused Acquitted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal trial — ruling on submission of no case to answer
Decision
Accused acquitted and discharged

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 while evidence showed defilement had occurred, no evidence was adduced connecting the accused to the offence. The complainant did not appear to testify. Suspicion alone is insufficient for conviction. Submission of no case to answer upheld. Accused acquitted under section 71(1) of the Trial on Indictments Act.

Outcome

Accused acquitted and discharged

Facts

The accused was indicted for defilement contrary to section 123(1) of the Penal Code Act. He pleaded not guilty. At the close of the prosecution case, defence counsel submitted there was no case to answer because the age of the victim had not been proved to be below 18 years and no evidence connected the accused to the alleged defilement. The complainant who would have testified as to what happened did not appear in court. The prosecution maintained a prima facie case had been made out.

Issues

  1. Whether a prima facie case of defilement had been established against the accused.
  2. Whether the prosecution adduced sufficient evidence to connect the accused with the commission of the offence.

Orders

  • Submission of no case to answer upheld.
  • Accused found not guilty.
  • Accused acquitted under section 71(1) of the Trial on Indictments Act.

Rules and key headnotes

Criminal Law & Procedure — Submission of No Case to Answer — Test to be Applied
A case to answer means that if the accused decided to keep quiet after the close of the prosecution case the court would proceed to convict him. Where no case is made out, it means the evidence available is not enough to have the accused convicted by a reasonable tribunal properly directing its mind to such evidence and law.
Evidence — Proof — Suspicion Distinguished from Evidence
Suspicion alone, without evidence connecting an accused to the commission of an offence, is insufficient to sustain a conviction.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Defilement — Evidence Required to Connect Accused
Where the complainant victim fails to appear to give evidence linking the accused to an alleged defilement, and the prosecution's case rests on suspicion, a submission of no case to answer will succeed.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (2)

  • R.T. Bhatt v R (1957) EA 332
  • Israil Epuku s/o Achiebu v R (1934) 1 EACA 168

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Uganda v Kudaba Badilu (Criminal Sessions Case 259 of 1994) [1995] UGHC 141 (1 September 1995)
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.