Wakilii

uganda v no. 40709 sgt Mukerege and another (Criminal Session Case 346 of 1991)

High Court · [1993] UGHC 73 · 1993 Acquittal Entered AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal trial at first instance on indictment for murder, robbery, and attempted murder; ruling on no case to answer submission
Decision
Accused Bahemuka Patrick acquitted and discharged following successful no case to answer submission

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 upheld the submission of no case to answer in a murder, robbery, and attempted murder prosecution. The prosecution evidence failed to connect the accused Bahemuka Patrick to any of the alleged offences. The sole eyewitness identified only the co-accused Mukerege and could not identify the second attacker. Applying the principle from Bhatt v R that no reasonable tribunal properly directing itself would convict on the prosecution evidence, the court acquitted the accused under section 71(1) of the Trial on Indictments Decree.

Outcome

Accused Bahemuka Patrick acquitted and discharged following successful no case to answer submission

Facts

The accused Bahemuka Patrick was indicted together with co-accused Sgt Mukerege (who escaped custody) for the murder of Rusoke Augustine and Kabasita, robbery, and attempted murder. The prosecution case relied on two witnesses and postmortem reports. The eyewitness Tedora Biryomunda testified that attackers raided their home, cut her, took property, and killed two persons. She identified only Mukerege by torchlight and could not identify the second attacker. She was blindfolded, rendered unconscious, and only learned of the deaths two weeks later. The village chairman testified to arresting the suspects. The accused pleaded not guilty to all four counts. At close of prosecution case, defence counsel submitted no case to answer, which the state prosecutor conceded.

Issues

  1. Whether the prosecution adduced sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case requiring the accused to answer the charges of murder, robbery, and attempted murder.

Orders

  • Submission of no case to answer upheld.
  • Accused found not guilty.
  • Accused acquitted under section 71(1) of the Trial on Indictments Decree.

Rules and key headnotes

Criminal Procedure — No Case to Answer — Test for Upholding Submission
A submission of no case to answer must be upheld where no reasonable tribunal properly directing its mind to the evidence and the law would proceed to convict if the accused decided to offer no evidence at the close of the prosecution case.
Evidence — Burden of Proof — Prima Facie Case — Failure to Connect Accused
Where prosecution evidence wholly fails to connect the accused with the alleged offences, no prima facie case is established and the accused is entitled to acquittal under section 71(1) of the Trial on Indictments Decree without being called upon to enter a defence.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (1)

  • Bhatt v R (1957)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

uganda v no. 40709 sgt Mukerege and another (Criminal Session Case 346 of 1991) [1993] UGHC 73 (7 December 1993)
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.