Wakilii

Uganda v Ndyanabo and Anor (Criminal Session Case 06-CR-SC 97 of 2017)

High Court · [2022] UGHCCRD 9 · 2022 Acquittal Entered AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal trial at first instance following indictment for murder; ruling on no case to answer submission at close of prosecution case
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 the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case. The evidence of the two police witnesses was hearsay, as they did not witness the events and the alleged eyewitnesses were not called to testify. The prosecution did not adduce credible direct or circumstantial evidence placing the accused at the scene as perpetrators. Accused acquitted under Trial on Indictments Act s.73(1).

Outcome

Accused acquitted and discharged

Facts

On 20 December 2016, police received a report that a dead body was found in Mashaka playground, Kisoro District. The deceased, Ntamuheza Jean, had a deep wound on the orbital area and marks of beating. Cause of death was excessive bleeding due to head injury. The accused were arrested following investigations. At trial, the prosecution called two police officers who testified that they received information from village officials and witnesses (who were not called to testify) that the deceased had been drinking at various bars on the evening of 19 December 2016, and that the accused had followed him and were involved in an altercation. The deceased was allegedly assaulted and his body found the next day.

Issues

  1. Whether the prosecution adduced sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case warranting the accused to be placed on their defence.
  2. Whether the prosecution proved the ingredient of participation by the accused in the commission of the offence of murder.

Orders

  • Ndyanabo Patrick (A1) and Ndagijimana Girivas (A2) acquitted of the charge of murder.
  • Accused ordered to be set free unless held on any other lawful charges.

Rules and key headnotes

Criminal Law & Procedure — No Case to Answer — Test for Prima Facie Case
A prima facie case is established when a reasonable tribunal, properly directing its mind to the law and the evidence, would convict the accused if no evidence or explanation is offered by the defence. A prima facie case is not established by a mere scintilla of evidence or by any amount of worthless, discredited prosecution evidence.
Criminal Law & Procedure — No Case to Answer — Grounds for Upholding Submission
A submission of no case to answer may be upheld when there has been no evidence adduced by the prosecution to prove an essential element in the alleged offence, or when the evidence adduced by the prosecution has been so discredited or is so manifestly unreliable that no reasonable tribunal could safely convict on it.
Evidence — Hearsay — Inadmissibility and Exceptions
Hearsay evidence is generally inadmissible subject to certain exceptions set out under the Evidence Act. The essential defining features of hearsay are that the statement is made out of court, is adduced to prove the truth of its contents, and there is an absence of a contemporaneous opportunity to cross-examine the declarant.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Murder — Proof of Participation
To prove the ingredient of participation in murder, there must be credible direct or circumstantial evidence placing the accused at the scene of the crime as the perpetrator of the offence. Where the prosecution relies on hearsay evidence from police officers who did not witness the events and fails to call the alleged eyewitnesses, the ingredient of participation is not proved.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (7)

  • Rananlal T Bhatt v Republic (1957) EA 332
  • Uganda v Mulwo Aramadhan (Criminal Case No. 103 of 2008)
  • State v Rajhnath and Others (HCA No. S 104 of 1997)
  • Sanjit Chaittal v The State (1985) 39 WLR 925
  • R v Gusambizi s/o Wesonga (1948) 15 EACA 65
  • R v Tubere s/o Ochieng (1945) 12 EACA 63
  • R v Khelawon [2006] 2 SCR 787

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Uganda v Ndyanabo and Anor (Criminal Session Case 06-CR-SC 97 of 2017) [2022] UGHCCRD 9 (24 January 2022)
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.