Wakilii

Uganda v Kusolo Lasto (Criminal Session Case No. 166 of 2023)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 751 · 2025 Acquittal Entered AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal trial at first instance on indictment for aggravated defilement; ruling on prima facie case following close of prosecution case
Decision
Accused acquitted and discharged on a 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 aggravated defilement on a no case to answer. While the prosecution proved the victim's age (under 14 years) and that a sexual act had been performed on her, it failed to adduce any direct or circumstantial evidence linking the accused to the commission of the offence. The evidence consisted solely of hearsay testimony from witnesses who were told about the defilement but did not witness it, and no independent corroboration or forensic evidence connected the accused to the crime.

Outcome

Accused acquitted and discharged on a no case to answer

Facts

The accused was indicted for aggravated defilement of a 12-year-old girl on 13 December 2021 at Kabumbi Zone, Wakiso district. The victim, Namutebi Angel, did not testify at trial. The prosecution called two witnesses: PW1 (the victim's father) testified that his son told him the victim had been raped by the accused, but he did not witness the incident. PW2 (a police detective) testified that the victim told her she had been defiled by a man called 'uncle', but PW2 recovered no physical evidence linking the accused to the crime. Medical examination (PEX2) showed old tears and lacerations on the victim's hymen and reddening of the vulva. The victim's immunisation card (PEX1) confirmed her date of birth as 24 February 2009, making her 12 years old at the time of the alleged offence. The accused, who is deaf and mute, pleaded not guilty.

Issues

  1. Whether the prosecution established a prima facie case on the first ingredient that the victim was below the age of 14 years.
  2. Whether the prosecution established a prima facie case on the second ingredient that a sexual act was performed on the victim.
  3. Whether the prosecution established a prima facie case on the third ingredient that it was the accused who performed the sexual act on the victim.

Orders

  • Accused found not guilty and acquitted on a no case to answer.
  • Accused Kusolo Lasto to be set free forthwith unless lawfully held on other charges.
  • Prosecution at liberty to reinstate charges should sufficient evidence become available in the future.

Rules and key headnotes

Criminal Law & Procedure — Aggravated Defilement — Prima Facie Case — Ingredients to be Proved
For the prosecution to establish a prima facie case in aggravated defilement under section 116(3) and (4)(a) of the Penal Code Act, it must adduce sufficient evidence on three essential ingredients: (1) that the victim was below the age of 14 years; (2) that a sexual act was performed on the victim; and (3) that it was the accused who performed the sexual act.
Evidence — Hearsay — Inadmissibility — Absence of Victim's Testimony
Where the victim does not testify and the prosecution's case rests solely on witnesses who were told about the alleged offence but did not witness it, such testimony constitutes hearsay and is inadmissible to prove the commission of the offence or to link the accused to it, absent any applicable exception to the hearsay rule.
Evidence — Medical Evidence — Insufficiency to Link Accused — Old Injuries
Medical evidence showing old tears and lacerations on the hymen is not conclusive of recent sexual activity and cannot, in the absence of direct or circumstantial evidence, establish that the accused was the perpetrator of the alleged sexual act.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Prima Facie Case — No Case to Answer — Failure to Link Accused to Offence
A prima facie case is not established where the prosecution fails to adduce any direct, circumstantial, or other cogent evidence placing the accused at the scene of the crime or linking the accused to the commission of the offence, even where other ingredients of the offence have been proved.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Acquittal — Liberty to Reinstate Charges
Where an accused is acquitted on a no case to answer, the prosecution retains the liberty to reinstate the charges should sufficient evidence become available in the future.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (26)

  • Wabiro alias Musa v R (1960) EA 184
  • Rananlal T. Bhatt v R [1957] EA 332
  • Uganda v Alfred Ateu [1974] HCB 179
  • Uganda v Kagoro Godfrey (Criminal Session Case No. 141 of 2002)
  • Uganda v Fulawak (Criminal Session Case No. 85 of 2018)
  • Uganda v Onencan Innocent (Criminal Session Case No. HCT-08-CR-SC-0190 of 2023)
  • Wepukhulu Nyuguli v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 21 of 2001)
  • Adamu Mubiru v Uganda (Court of Appeal Criminal Appeal No. 47 of 1997)
  • Remigious Kiwanuka v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 41 of 1995)
  • Uganda v Sunday Herbert (Criminal Session Case No. HCT-01-CR-SC-162 of 2021)
  • Hussein Bassita v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 35 of 1995)
  • Rivel (1950) Cr App R 871
  • Matheson (1958) 42 Cr App R 145
  • Anyolitho v Uganda (Court of Appeal Criminal Appeal No. 22 of 2012)
  • Tepper v R [1952] AC 480
  • Simon Musoke v R [1958] EA 715
  • Akol Patrick v Uganda [2006] HCB 7
  • Apea v Uganda (Court of Appeal Criminal Appeal No. 653 of 2015) [2021] UGCA 4
  • Lee v Illinois 476 US 630
  • Omollo Ben and Others v Uganda (Court of Appeal Criminal Appeal No. 68 of 2011)
  • Wabomba Namonyo alias Musamali v Uganda (Court of Appeal Criminal Appeal No. 194 of 2020)
  • Ntirenganya v Uganda (Court of Appeal Criminal Appeal No. 109 of 2017)
  • Jasinga Akum v R (1954) 21 EACA 334
  • Woolmington v Director of Public Prosecutions [1935] AC 462
  • Lubogo v Uganda [1965] EA 559
  • Miller v Minister of Pensions [1947] 2 All ER 373

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Uganda v Kusolo Lasto (Criminal Session Case No. 166 of 2023) [2025] UGHC 751 (13 August 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.