Wakilii

Uganda v. Okiror James (Crim. Appeal No 39 Of 2008) (Crim. Appeal No 39 of 2008)

High Court · [2009] UGHC 202 · 2009 Appeal Partly Allowed — Acquittal Set Aside AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal appeal from acquittal at no case to answer stage in Magistrate Grade I Court
Decision
Matter remitted to trial court for respondent to enter defence on charges of forgery and uttering a false document

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 allowed the prosecution's appeal against an acquittal at no case to answer stage on charges of forgery and uttering a false document. The court held that a receipt stating the accused hired transport for 23 days when he had done so for only 15 days was a forged document because it told a lie about itself, had the ability to defraud, and was created with intent to deceive. The accused uttered the false document by using it in civil proceedings to recover damages. A prima facie case was established requiring the accused to enter a defence. The acquittal was set aside and the matter remitted to the trial court.

Outcome

Matter remitted to trial court for respondent to enter defence on charges of forgery and uttering a false document

Facts

On 11 May 2005, the respondent's motor vehicle was involved in an accident with the complainant's vehicle. The respondent's vehicle required repairs. The respondent subsequently hired transport from Dirisa Walugembe (PW2) for his work. The respondent later sued the complainant in the Chief Magistrate's Court claiming special damages of UGX 1,960,000 as cost of transport for 23 days. He presented a cash sale receipt from Dirisa Transport Services as evidence. The court awarded him the damages and the complainant paid. The complainant believed the receipt was forged and reported to police. The respondent was charged with forgery and uttering a false document. After prosecution evidence, the trial magistrate found no case to answer and acquitted the respondent. PW2 testified he worked for the respondent for only 15 days, not 23 days as stated in the receipt, though he received payment for 23 days and authorised one Mukasa to issue the receipt on his behalf.

Issues

  1. Whether it was proved that the receipt in question was issued by Mukasa.
  2. Whether the receipt was forged.
  3. Whether the respondent falsely uttered the receipt in court.
  4. Whether the prosecution established a prima facie case so as to require the respondent to be put on his defence.

Orders

  • Appeal partially succeeds.
  • Grounds 1, 3, and 4 of the appeal succeed.
  • Ground 2 fails.
  • Acquittal is set aside.
  • Respondent to return to the trial court to be put on his defence.

Rules and key headnotes

Forgery — Elements of the Offence — False Document with Intent to Defraud
Forgery is constituted by the making of a false document with intent to defraud or deceive. The elements are: (i) false making or material alteration or possessing of a document, (ii) ability to defraud, (iii) legal efficacy of the document, and (iv) the intent to deceive, defraud, or injure. The falsity must be of the purport of the document, not merely its contents — the document must tell a lie about itself.
Forgery — Receipt Overstating Days of Service — Document Telling a Lie About Itself
A receipt purporting to evidence payment for 23 days of transport services when the services were rendered for only 15 days is a forged document because it tells a lie about itself. The document falsely represents the extent of services provided and was created with intent to defraud a third party by enabling recovery of excessive damages in civil proceedings.
Forgery — Intent to Defraud — No Requirement of Actual Use
The specific state of mind for forgery requires only an intent to fool people, not an intention to steal. The forger must have intended that other people regard something false as genuine. A forgery is complete upon creating such a document with this requisite intent. No use need be made of the document, nor does it need to be circulated. The test is whether anyone might have been defrauded.
Uttering False Document — Elements of the Offence
The offence of uttering a false document under s.351 of the Penal Code Act is constituted by three elements: (i) passing or making use of a forged document, (ii) intent to defraud, and (iii) knowledge of forgery. Passing and making use means putting into circulation a writing or document that involves forgery. The offence is complete when a person uses a forged document with knowledge that it is forged.
Uttering — Use of Forged Receipt in Court Proceedings
Where an accused person attaches a forged receipt to a plaint in civil proceedings and produces it in court as evidence to support a claim for damages, the offence of uttering a false document is constituted. The act of putting the forged document into circulation by filing it with the court and adducing it as evidence amounts to uttering.
Receipts — Legal Efficacy Under s.30(b) of the Evidence Act
A receipt is a formal acknowledgement which falls under relevant facts provided for by s.30(b) of the Evidence Act. Where the maker of a receipt cannot be found or cannot attend court, the court is bound by s.30(b) to accept the receipt as evidence of the transaction because it is a statement made in the ordinary course of business, and in particular an entry or memorandum made in books kept in the ordinary course of business.
Deceit and Fraud — Definitions
To defraud is to deceive by deceit, and to deceive is to induce a person to believe that a thing is true which is false. To deceive is by falsehood to induce a state of mind; to defraud is by deceit to induce a course of action.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (5)

  • Baigumamu v Uganda [1973] EA 26
  • Okero v Republic [1972] EA
  • Peters v Sunday Post [1958] EA 424
  • Uganda v Seezi Cheeye (Criminal Case No. 1254 of 2008)
  • R v Wines [1953] 2 All ER 1497

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Uganda Vs. Okiror James (Crim. Appeal No 39 Of 2008) (Crim. Appeal No 39 of 2008) [2009] UGHC 202 (11 November 2009)
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.