Wakilii

Uganda v Shibungu James Paul Wepusi (Criminal Session Case No. 448 of 2025)

High Court · [2026] UGHC 322 · 2026 Acquittal Entered AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance criminal trial for rape in the High Court
Decision
Accused acquitted and set free forthwith

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 rape. While the prosecution proved sexual intercourse occurred and that the victim did not consent, it failed to prove the accused was the perpetrator. The victim did not testify to identify the accused. Prosecution witnesses relied on inadmissible hearsay. The accused's alibi that he was at home nursing a circumcision wound was corroborated by his mother and not disproved by the prosecution.

Outcome

Accused acquitted and set free forthwith

Facts

The accused was charged with raping Nakami Lydia on 15 April 2023 at Bunatoboso village in Bududa District. On 16 April 2023, a district councillor heard noise and found people gathered at the accused's home. The accused was under arrest and the victim was present with blood-stained clothes. The victim had injuries consistent with forced sexual penetration and assault. The accused denied the offence, stating he was at home the entire day nursing a circumcision wound from December 2022 that had not healed. His mother corroborated that he stayed home and could not have left due to the unhealed wound. The victim did not testify at trial.

Issues

  1. Whether there was sexual intercourse with the victim.
  2. Whether the victim consented to the sexual intercourse.
  3. Whether it was the accused who had unlawful sexual intercourse with the victim.

Orders

  • Accused found not guilty of rape.
  • Accused acquitted.
  • Accused set free forthwith.

Rules and key headnotes

Rape — Burden of Proof — Essential Ingredients
For an accused to be convicted of rape under sections 110 and 111 of the Penal Code Act, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that there was sexual intercourse with the victim, that the victim did not consent, and that it was the accused who had the unlawful sexual intercourse.
Sexual Offences — Proof of Sexual Intercourse — Medical Evidence
The act of sexual intercourse or penetration may be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence, which may be corroborated by medical or other evidence. It is not a hard and fast rule that the victim's evidence must always be adduced in every case, provided the evidence adduced is sufficient to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
Sexual Offences — Lack of Consent — Proof by Medical Evidence
Lack of consent in rape cases can be proved by the victim's evidence or evidence from surrounding circumstances. Medical evidence showing injuries consistent with forced sexual penetration is sufficient to prove that sexual intercourse was performed without the victim's consent.
Identification — Hearsay Evidence — Inadmissibility
For a court to convict an accused, there must be credible direct or circumstantial evidence placing the accused at the scene of crime as a perpetrator. Hearsay evidence concerning the accused's involvement is inadmissible in the absence of testimony from the person who provided the information.
Defence — Alibi — Failure to Disprove
Where an accused raises an alibi that is corroborated by a defence witness and the prosecution fails to disprove that alibi or place the accused at the scene of crime, the prosecution has not discharged its burden of proving the accused's participation in the offence beyond reasonable doubt.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (6)

  • Woolmington v DPP [1935] AC 462
  • Ssekitoleko v Uganda (1967) EA 531
  • Miller v Minister for Pensions [1947] 2 All ER 372
  • Bassita Hussein v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 35 of 1995)
  • Remigious Kiwanuka v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 41 of 1995)
  • Nakholi v Republic (1967) EA 337

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Uganda v Shibungu James Paul Wepusi (Criminal Session Case No. 448 of 2025) [2026] UGHC 322 (27 March 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.