Wakilii

Uganda v Nulu Lugoli (Busoba CRB No. CRB 291 of 2023; Criminal Session Case No. 28 of 2024)

High Court · [2026] UGHC 486 · 2026 Acquittal Entered AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance criminal trial on indictment for aggravated trafficking in children
Decision
Accused acquitted and ordered released from custody forthwith unless held on other lawful charges

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 acquitted the accused of aggravated trafficking in children. While the court found that the accused transferred the victim (a two-month-old child) from one place to another, the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the essential elements of means and purpose. The evidence did not establish that the accused used deception or other prohibited means, nor that the transfer was for child sacrifice or ritual purposes. The accused's explanation that she temporarily took her niece due to the delay of the child's sisters was plausible. Inconsistent evidence about whether the victim was found in a shrine, and the absence of independent investigative evidence, created reasonable doubt that was resolved in favour of the accused.

Outcome

Accused acquitted and ordered released from custody forthwith unless held on other lawful charges

Facts

On 4 July 2023, the victim's parents left their two-month-old baby at home with two older children (aged 12 and 14) while they went to dig in the garden. The accused, who is the victim's paternal aunt, came to the home and introduced herself to the children. She gave them money to buy soda and chapatti from a shop 800 meters away. While the children were at the shop, the accused took the baby. When the children returned and found the baby missing, they raised an alarm. The victim's mother rushed home and was told what happened. She went to the accused's father's home (the victim's paternal grandfather's home) and found the accused there with the baby. The prosecution alleged the accused took the child for purposes of child sacrifice or witchcraft. The accused testified that she took the child because the older children delayed returning from the shop and she could not leave her infant niece unattended. She stated she took the baby to her parents' home and prepared tea for the child.

Issues

  1. Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused recruited, transported, transferred, harboured or received the victim.
  2. Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused used threat, force, coercion, abduction, fraud, deception, abuse of power or position of vulnerability in taking the victim.
  3. Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused transferred the victim for purposes of child sacrifice, witchcraft, rituals or related practices.
  4. Whether the victim was a child within the meaning of the Prevention of Trafficking in Persons Act.
  5. Whether the prosecution proved the participation of the accused in the offence charged.

Orders

  • Accused found not guilty of the offence of aggravated trafficking in persons.
  • Accused acquitted.
  • Accused ordered released from custody forthwith unless held on other lawful charges.

Rules and key headnotes

Trafficking in Persons — Essential Elements — Means and Purpose
For the offence of aggravated trafficking in children, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt not only the act of recruiting, transporting, transferring, harbouring or receiving a child, but also the means employed (such as threat, force, coercion, abduction, fraud, deception, abuse of power or position of vulnerability) and the purpose of exploitation (including child sacrifice, witchcraft, rituals or related practices). Failure to prove any essential element results in acquittal.
Trafficking in Persons — Means Element — Deception
Where an accused person is a family member who takes a child in circumstances that could be explained by familial concern, and where the accused provides a plausible explanation for the temporary transfer, the prosecution must adduce clear evidence of deception or other prohibited means. The mere giving of money to older siblings to create an opportunity to be alone with an infant does not, without more, constitute deception for purposes of the Prevention of Trafficking in Persons Act where the accused openly identified herself and the circumstances suggested legitimate concern for the child's welfare.
Trafficking in Persons — Purpose Element — Child Sacrifice or Rituals
To prove that a child was transferred for purposes of child sacrifice, witchcraft or rituals, the prosecution must adduce credible evidence of the intended purpose. Where there is divergent evidence as to whether the victim was found in a shrine, and the prosecution fails to adduce independent investigative evidence such as photographs or other objective evidence, and where the victim's own mother testifies that no shrine was involved, the doubt created must be resolved in favour of the accused.
Burden and Standard of Proof — Criminal Cases
In all criminal trials, the burden of proof lies on the prosecution throughout the trial and does not shift to the accused except where a statutory provision to the contrary exists. The standard required is proof beyond reasonable doubt, which is not merely possible doubt but that state of the case which, after entire comparison and consideration of all the evidence, leaves the court with an abiding conviction to a moral certainty of the truth of the charge.
Participation — Placing Accused at Scene of Crime
Participation or placing the accused at the scene of the crime may be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence. However, the element of participation is not standalone but is intrinsically linked to the other elements that constitute the offence. Where the prosecution fails to prove other essential ingredients of the offence beyond reasonable doubt, proof of participation alone is insufficient for conviction.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (6)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Uganda v Nulu Lugoli (Busoba CRB No. CRB 291 of 2023; Criminal Session Case No. 28 of 2024) [2026] UGHC 486 (14 May 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.