Uganda v Maliki (Session Case 3 of 2021)
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 International Crimes Division confirmed charges of aggravated trafficking in children and defilement against the accused. The court held that the prosecution established substantial grounds to believe that the accused received and harboured a 17-year-old child for sexual exploitation, and performed sexual acts with her. The court applied the ICC standard of proof from Article 61(7) of the Rome Statute, finding it appropriate for pre-trial confirmation hearings in the International Crimes Division.
Outcome
Accused committed to trial on confirmed charges of aggravated trafficking in children and defilement
Facts
In 2019, a 17-year-old girl (the victim) was chased from home by her mother following a disagreement about the identity of her father. The accused, a 26-year-old man, met the victim and proposed a relationship. She accepted and went to live with him at his residence in Kibuli. They engaged in regular unprotected sexual intercourse. In August 2020, the victim discovered she was pregnant and informed the accused. He demanded she have an abortion. When she refused, he chased her from his house. She reported the matter to police. Medical examination confirmed her pregnancy. The victim's mother stated the victim was born on 5 May 2002, making her 17 years old at the time of the offence. The accused admitted in his statement that he cohabited with the victim and was responsible for her pregnancy.
Issues
- Whether the prosecution established substantial grounds to believe that the accused committed aggravated trafficking in children contrary to Section 3(1)(a) and 5(a) of the Prevention of Trafficking in Persons Act 2009.
- Whether the prosecution established substantial grounds to believe that the accused committed defilement contrary to Section 129(1) of the Penal Code Act.
Orders
- Charges of aggravated trafficking in children contrary to Section 3(1)(a) and 5(a) of the Prevention of Trafficking in Persons Act 2009 confirmed.
- Charge of defilement contrary to Section 129(1) of the Penal Code Act confirmed.
- Accused committed to the Trial Court on the charges as confirmed.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (10)
- Prevention of Trafficking in Persons Act 2009 s.2(a)
- Prevention of Trafficking in Persons Act 2009 s.2(d)
- Prevention of Trafficking in Persons Act 2009 s.2(j)
- Prevention of Trafficking in Persons Act 2009 s.2(r)
- Prevention of Trafficking in Persons Act 2009 s.3(1)(a)
- Prevention of Trafficking in Persons Act 2009 s.3(3)
- Prevention of Trafficking in Persons Act 2009 s.3(4)
- Prevention of Trafficking in Persons Act 2009 s.5(a)
- Penal Code Act Cap 120 s.129(1)
- Rome Statute Article 61(7)
Cases cited (5)
- Uganda v Miria Rwigambwa (Session Case No. 6 of 2021)
- Uganda v Nsungwa Rose Karamagi (Session Case No. 7 of 2021)
- Soering v United Kingdom (Application No. 14038/88)
- Prosecutor v Thomas Lubanga Dyilo (ICC-01/04-01/06)
- Mamatkulov and Askarov v Turkey (Applications Nos. 46827/99 and 46951/99)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.