Wakilii

Uganda v Ssegonga Musa (Criminal Session 131 of 2017)

High Court · [2023] UGHC 245 · 2023 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Ruling on prosecution application to declare PW3 a hostile witness in ongoing criminal trial
Decision
PW3 declared hostile witness; his testimony remains on record subject to assessment of admissible parts

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 declared PW3 a hostile witness after finding that his oral testimony materially departed from his recorded police statement. While PW3 testified that he saw two men with a lady in good terms and the lady was smiling, his police statement recorded that he witnessed the lady crying and being raped. The court rejected the defence argument that the witness had not acknowledged his statement, noting that the accused himself confirmed PW3 had signed it. The court declined to expunge PW3's testimony entirely, holding that relevant and admissible parts of a hostile witness's evidence can still be used.

Outcome

PW3 declared hostile witness; his testimony remains on record subject to assessment of admissible parts

Facts

Ssegonga Musa was charged with rape alleged to have occurred on 22 January 2017. During trial, PW3 (Mugambo Ibrahim) gave oral testimony that differed materially from his recorded police statement. In his oral evidence, PW3 stated he saw two men with a lady in good terms, heard noise, and later saw the lady smiling. In his police statement recorded shortly after the alleged incident, PW3 had stated he heard the lady crying, witnessed her being raped, that one accused was sleeping on her, and that the men offered money to let them go. The prosecution applied to declare PW3 hostile and tender his police statement. The defence argued the witness had not acknowledged his statement, but the accused himself confirmed PW3's signature on it.

Issues

  1. Whether PW3 should be declared a hostile witness based on material contradictions between his oral testimony and his recorded police statement.
  2. Whether the oral testimony of PW3 should be expunged from the record.

Orders

  • PW3, Mr. Mugambo Ibrahim, declared a hostile witness.
  • Application to expunge PW3's oral testimony from record dismissed.

Rules and key headnotes

Evidence — Hostile Witnesses — Declaration of Hostile Witness
A witness may be declared hostile where his testimony in court materially departs from the position taken during police investigation, demonstrating unwillingness to tell the truth or resiling from earlier statements.
Evidence — Hostile Witnesses — Admissibility of Evidence
The evidence of a hostile witness is not automatically inadmissible; relevant parts of such testimony that are admissible in law can be used by either the prosecution or the defence.
Evidence — Witness Statements — Acknowledgment and Ownership
A witness acknowledges and owns his police statement where he confirms signing it before court, and such acknowledgment is sufficient even if challenged by defence counsel.
Criminal Procedure — Trial — Assessment of Witness Credibility
The credibility of a witness is called into question where new facts emerge in oral testimony that contradict a police statement recorded shortly after the alleged offence, particularly where the witness was young and memory loss is unlikely.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (3)

  • Okwanga Anthony v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 20 of 2000)
  • Penchanan vs R.34 C.W.N. 526: A1930, C.276: 51 CL.J. 203
  • RAJESH YADAV & ANR. ETC. VERSUS STATE OF UP.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Uganda v Ssegonga Musa (Criminal Session 131 of 2017) [2023] UGHC 245 (11 October 2023)
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.