Wakilii

Uganda v Lomeri (Criminal Session Case No. 111 of 1995)

High Court · [1995] UGHCCRD 7 · 1995 Accused Acquitted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance criminal trial on indictment for rape
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

The prosecution proved penetration but failed to prove absence of consent. The accused testified on oath that the complainant consented to sexual intercourse. The prosecution did not cross-examine the accused on this testimony. Where the accused's credibility is not challenged in cross-examination and doubt exists on the element of consent, the benefit goes to the accused. Accused acquitted.

Outcome

Accused acquitted and discharged

Facts

On 20 February 1994 at around 7:30 am in Nekabelimen village, Moroto District, the accused approached the complainant Rose and her sister PW2. The accused held the complainant by the blouse, claiming she was his wife. During a struggle the accused slapped the complainant and PW2 reported to R.C. officials. When PW2 and PW3 (R.C.4) returned they found the complainant and accused locked in the accused's house. Witnesses heard bed sounds indicative of sexual intercourse and the complainant raising alarm and sounds of beatings. After getting the accused outside witnesses saw him kick the victim on the buttocks. The matter was reported to R.C.1 Court the next morning and then referred to police. Medical examination confirmed sexual intercourse had occurred. The accused testified he had consensual sexual intercourse with the complainant in his house. The prosecution did not cross-examine the accused on this testimony.

Issues

  1. Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had unlawful carnal knowledge of the complainant without her consent.

Orders

  • Accused found not guilty of rape.
  • Accused acquitted and set free forthwith under section 71(1) of the Trial on Indictment Decree unless lawfully held for some other crime.

Rules and key headnotes

Rape — Elements of Offence — Prosecution Burden to Prove Penetration and Absence of Consent
In a rape case the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that there was penetration and that the accused had sexual intercourse with the victim without her consent.
Credibility of Witness — Effect of Failure to Cross-Examine on Oath Testimony
Where an accused gives evidence on oath and the prosecution does not cross-examine him on that testimony, in the absence of discrediting evidence it is difficult to assume that his evidence is not worthy of truth and belief.
Rape — Consent — Benefit of Doubt Where Element Not Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt
Where there is doubt as to whether the complainant consented to sexual intercourse the benefit of that doubt goes to the accused.

Legislation cited (3)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Uganda v Lomeri (Criminal Session Case No. 111 of 1995) [1995] UGHCCRD 7 (9 May 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.