Uganda v Omoding Moses (Crim. Case No.57 of 2000)

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.

Holding

Where the prosecution offers no evidence after the complainant loses interest in proceedings, and closes its case without calling any witnesses, the court has only the indictment, which the accused denied. With no evidence adduced to establish a prima facie case, the accused cannot be required to make his defence under s.71(1) Trial on Indictments Act and must be acquitted.

Outcome

Accused acquitted and discharged

Facts

The accused was indicted for defilement contrary to s.123(1) Penal Code Act. He denied the charge. The complainant appeared to have lost interest in the case. The state offered no evidence and closed its case without calling any witnesses. The court was left only with the indictment, which the accused had denied.

Issues

1. Whether the prosecution adduced sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case against the accused requiring him to enter defence.

Orders

• Accused found not guilty of defilement contrary to s.123(1) Penal Code Act.
• Accused acquitted and discharged.
• Accused to be set free and at liberty unless held on other lawful charges.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (2)

• Penal Code Act s.123(1)
• Trial on Indictments Act s.71(1)

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