Wakilii

Uganda v Ojengo (Criminal Session Case No. 009 of 2011)

High Court · [2013] UGHCCRD 77 · 2013 Acquitted of Attempted Defilement; Convicted of Indecent Assault AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance criminal trial in the High Court
Decision
Accused acquitted of attempted defilement but convicted of indecent assault and sentenced to 3 years imprisonment

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 court acquitted the accused of attempted defilement, finding insufficient evidence that he had gone to the extent of putting his intention to defile into execution, as required by section 386(1) of the Penal Code Act. However, the court convicted the accused on the alternative charge of indecent assault, finding that he had undressed the victim and himself and was lying on top of her, acts that constituted unlawful and indecent assault under section 128(1).

Outcome

Accused acquitted of attempted defilement but convicted of indecent assault and sentenced to 3 years imprisonment

Facts

On 13 October 2010 at Wanyama East Zone in Bugembe Town Council, the accused, aged 68, was alleged to have attempted to defile a 12-year-old girl who was mentally challenged. The victim disappeared from home and returned without her shorts and slippers. Witnesses PW2 and PW5 testified that they were called to the scene and saw the accused lying half-naked on top of the victim, who was also undressed, on a bed in the accused's residence. The victim, unable to speak due to her condition, led her mother and the investigating officer to the accused's house and pointed out the bed. A medical examination found no evidence of penetration, though the victim had discharge from her private parts. The accused denied all allegations, claiming he was framed due to a family grudge.

Issues

  1. Whether the accused attempted to perform a sexual act with a 12-year-old girl contrary to section 129(5) of the Penal Code Act.
  2. Whether the accused's conduct amounted to putting his intention to defile into execution by means adapted for its fulfillment.
  3. Whether the accused indecently assaulted the victim contrary to section 128(1) of the Penal Code Act.

Orders

  • Accused found not guilty of Attempted Defilement and acquitted on the primary charge.
  • Accused found guilty of Indecent Assault contrary to section 128(1) of the Penal Code Act.
  • Accused convicted of Indecent Assault.
  • Accused sentenced to 3 years imprisonment.

Rules and key headnotes

Attempted Defilement — Elements of Attempt — Putting Intention into Execution
For a conviction of attempted defilement under section 129(5) read with section 386(1) of the Penal Code Act, the prosecution must prove that the accused began to put his intention to commit defilement into execution by means adapted for its fulfillment and manifested that intention by some overt act. Merely undressing the victim and lying on top of her, without evidence of attempting to insert the sexual organ or other acts manifesting an intention to complete the sexual act, does not constitute sufficient proof of putting the intention into execution.
Indecent Assault — What Constitutes Indecent Assault
Undressing a victim, undressing oneself, and lying on top of the victim in circumstances falling short of attempted sexual intercourse constitutes indecent assault under section 128(1) of the Penal Code Act where such conduct is unlawful and indecent in nature.
Burden of Proof — Criminal Cases — Standard of Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt
The prosecution bears the burden of proving all ingredients of a criminal offence beyond reasonable doubt, and failure to meet this standard on any essential ingredient requires an acquittal on that charge.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (2)

  • Woolmington v DPP [1935] AC 462
  • Uganda v Rwabulikwire Moses (HCT Criminal Session Case No. 66 of 2001)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Uganda v Ojengo (Criminal Session Case No. 009 of 2011) [2013] UGHCCRD 77 (13 November 2013)
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.