Wakilii

Uganda v Naigono Sulai and Another (Criminal Session Case 366 of 2025)

High Court · [2026] UGHC 262 · 2026 Conviction Entered AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance criminal trial in the High Court for aggravated trafficking in children and aggravated defilement
Decision
Both accused convicted and sentenced to imprisonment; A1 to serve 25 years, 10 months and 13 days; A2 to serve 15 years, 10 months and 13 days

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 convicted both accused of aggravated trafficking in children. The first accused was also convicted of aggravated defilement. The court held that the victim, aged 12, was transferred and harboured for sexual exploitation when the second accused (her sister-in-law) took her to a garden and facilitated sexual intercourse with the first accused in exchange for money. The victim's identification of the first accused at a properly conducted identification parade, corroborated by medical evidence of sexual penetration, proved participation beyond reasonable doubt. The court rejected defences of alibi and frame-up.

Outcome

Both accused convicted and sentenced to imprisonment; A1 to serve 25 years, 10 months and 13 days; A2 to serve 15 years, 10 months and 13 days

Facts

On 18 January 2024, the second accused (A2), sister-in-law of the 12-year-old victim, took the victim to a garden in Daalo village, Sironko District, ostensibly to dig. While there, the first accused (A1) approached them. A2 asked the victim to have sex with A1 in exchange for money to be shared between them. A2 cut banana leaves on which A1 and the victim lay, and A1 had sexual intercourse with the victim. The victim felt pain and later developed bruises in her private parts. She initially feared to report but eventually told her mother, who found bruises and reported to police. The victim, who did not know A1 before, identified him at a properly conducted identification parade. Medical examination revealed a laceration on the hymen, redness of the vulva, and vaginal discharge consistent with sexual penetration.

Issues

  1. Whether the victim was below 18 years of age.
  2. Whether the accused persons transported, harboured or received the victim.
  3. Whether the acts were performed by means of deception or abuse of position of power or position of vulnerability.
  4. Whether the purpose was sexual exploitation of the victim.
  5. Whether the accused persons participated in the acts of trafficking.
  6. Whether the victim was below 14 years of age (Count II).
  7. Whether a sexual act was performed on the victim (Count II).
  8. Whether it was the first accused who performed the sexual act on the victim (Count II).

Orders

  • Both accused persons convicted of aggravated trafficking in children (Count I).
  • First accused (A1) convicted of aggravated defilement (Count II).
  • A1 sentenced to 18 years' imprisonment on Count I and 28 years' imprisonment on Count II, to run concurrently.
  • A2 sentenced to 18 years' imprisonment on Count I.
  • Period spent on remand (2 years, 1 month and 17 days) deducted from each sentence.
  • A1 to serve 25 years, 10 months and 13 days from date of conviction.
  • A2 to serve 15 years, 10 months and 13 days from date of conviction.
  • Right of appeal to the Court of Appeal within 14 days.

Rules and key headnotes

Trafficking in Persons — Aggravated Trafficking in Children — Elements of the Offence
Under the Prevention of Trafficking in Persons Act, aggravated trafficking in children is established where the victim is below 18 years and the accused recruits, transports, transfers, harbours or receives the victim for the purpose of exploitation. Where the victim is a child, the acts of recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt for the purpose of exploitation constitute trafficking even if no means of coercion, deception or abuse of power is proved, and the consent of the child or parents is irrelevant.
Trafficking in Persons — Sexual Exploitation — Definition and Proof
Sexual exploitation under the Prevention of Trafficking in Persons Act includes the use of a person for sexual intercourse or other lascivious conduct. Where a child is transferred and harboured in a location and induced to engage in sexual intercourse in exchange for money, the purpose of sexual exploitation is established, particularly where corroborated by medical evidence of sexual penetration and injury.
Identification — Identification Parade — Procedural Requirements
An identification parade is intended to confirm whether a witness accurately identified the assailant at the scene of crime, especially where conditions favouring identification were difficult. The parade must comply with established procedural rules including: the accused must be placed among at least eight persons of similar age, height and general appearance; the accused may choose his position and change it after each witness; witnesses must not communicate with each other; the accused must be asked if satisfied the parade is conducted fairly; and the witness must be told the group may or may not contain the suspect without influencing the witness in any way.
Identification — Identification Parade — Matching Age and Appearance of Candidates
In conducting an identification parade, matching the physical appearance and size of candidates is more important than exact age matching. Where candidates range in age from 20 to 35 years but are similar in size and general appearance, the variance in ages does not breach the requirement of similarity and does not prejudice the identification of the suspect, as it would be impractical to obtain eight candidates with identical age and size within a locality.
Defence — Alibi — Burden of Proof and Disproof
Once an accused raises a defence of alibi, the prosecution must adduce cogent evidence to disprove it by placing the accused at the scene of crime. The alibi may be disproved either by investigating its genuineness or by adducing cogent evidence placing the accused at the scene. If the court finds the alibi true or is left in doubt, the accused must be acquitted. However, even where the alibi is proved false, the court must still consider whether the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt.
Aggravated Defilement — Sexual Act — Definition and Proof
A sexual act under section 116(7) of the Penal Code Act means penetration of the vagina, mouth or anus, however slight, by a sexual organ, or the unlawful use of any object or organ on another person's sexual organ. A sexual act does not necessarily have to be sexual intercourse. Where a victim testifies to sexual intercourse accompanied by pain, and medical evidence reveals laceration of the hymen, redness of the vulva and vaginal discharge consistent with sexual penetration, the element of a sexual act is proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Sentencing — Aggravated Defilement and Trafficking — Aggravating Factors
In sentencing for aggravated defilement and aggravated trafficking in children, relevant aggravating factors include: the tender age of the victim; the significant age difference between victim and accused; abuse of a position of trust or familial relationship; the pain and psychological trauma suffered by the victim; and the high prevalence of sexual and gender-based violence offences against children in the region and country, which requires deterrent sentences to send a firm message to would-be offenders.

Legislation cited (10)

Cases cited (16)

  • Woolmington v DPP [1935] AC 462
  • Ssekitoleko v Uganda (1967) EA 531
  • Miller v Minister for Pensions [1947] 2 All ER 372
  • Uganda v Oryem Bosco (Criminal Case No. 116 of 2009)
  • Rex v Mwango s/o Manaa (1936) 3 EACA 29
  • Ssentale v Uganda (1968) EA 365
  • Stephen Mugume v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 20 of 1995)
  • Baluku and Another v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 21 of 2014)
  • Uganda v Dusman Sabuni (1978) HCB 1
  • Androa Asenua and Another v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1998)
  • Aharikundira Yustina v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 27 of 2015)
  • Umutoni Annet v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 855 of 2014)
  • Ssegirinya Fulugensio v Uganda (Court of Appeal Criminal Appeal No. 549 of 2016)
  • Bashir Burahuri v Uganda (Court of Appeal Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 2015)
  • Byaruhanga Odi v Uganda (Court of Appeal Criminal Appeal No. 47 of 2016)
  • Mugisha Demiriyani v Uganda (Court of Appeal Criminal Appeal No. 161 of 2014)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Uganda v Naigono Sulai and Another (Criminal Session Case 366 of 2025) [2026] UGHC 262 (19 March 2026)
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.