Wakilii

Uganda v. Sulaiman Karoli (Crim. Case No. 56 Of 2002) (Crim. Case No. 56 of 2002)

High Court · [2003] UGHC 109 · 2003 Acquitted — No Case to Answer AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance criminal prosecution on amended indictment
Decision
Accused acquitted and discharged

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

Held that where the sole evidence linking the accused to abduction is the unsworn testimony of a child of tender years (9 years old), corroboration is mandatory under section 38(3) of the Trial on Indictments Decree before a conviction can be sustained. The accused's failure to join neighbours in searching for or visiting the victim does not constitute corroboration, as he was under no legal duty to do so. No prima facie case was made out. Accused found not guilty and discharged.

Outcome

Accused acquitted and discharged

Facts

On the night of 1 September 2001 in Bulumba village, Pallisa district, Aisha Ssali, a 9-year-old girl, went outside her home to urinate wearing only black knickers. She did not return. The next day she was found in a bush and brought home still in her knickers. She testified that the accused, a neighbour, grabbed her, took her into his house, performed rituals on her including tying a white handkerchief around her head, and the next morning took her by bicycle to a bush and left her. A herdsman later rescued her. The accused was originally charged with kidnap with intent to murder; the indictment was amended to abduction with intent to confine in order to subject to harm. The accused denied the offence. At the close of the prosecution case, defence submitted no case to answer on the ground that the accused's participation was not proved.

Issues

  1. Whether the prosecution established a prima facie case requiring the accused to answer.
  2. Whether the unsworn evidence of a child of tender years, uncorroborated, could ground a conviction under section 38(3) of the Trial on Indictments Decree.

Orders

  • Submission of no case to answer upheld.
  • Finding of not guilty returned in respect of the accused for the offence of abduction with intent to confine a person in order to subject him to harm contrary to section 237 of the Penal Code Act.
  • Accused discharged and set free forthwith unless otherwise lawfully held.

Rules and key headnotes

Evidence — Corroboration — Child of Tender Years — Unsworn Testimony
Under section 38(3) of the Trial on Indictments Decree, where a child of tender years (below 14 years) gives unsworn evidence for the prosecution, the accused cannot be convicted unless that evidence is corroborated by some other material evidence implicating him.
Evidence — Corroboration — Nature and Scope
Evidence of corroboration means independent evidence which affects the accused by connecting or tending to connect him with the crime, confirming in some material particular not only that the crime has been committed but also that the accused committed it.
Evidence — Corroboration — Omissions as Evidence
An omission may amount to corroboration only where it is an unlawful omission. Where a person owes no legal or other duty to act in a particular manner, his omission does not constitute corroborative evidence of an unlawful act.
Criminal Procedure — No Case to Answer — Test
A prima facie case means a case sufficient to call for an answer from the accused. At the close of the prosecution case, all the court must decide is whether a case has been made out against the accused just sufficiently to require him to make his defence. No prima facie case will be held to have been made out where the prosecution has failed to prove an essential part of the offence charged or where the evidence of the prosecution has been so discredited in cross-examination or is so manifestly unreliable that no reasonable tribunal could act on it.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (5)

  • Bhatt v Republic [1957] EA 332
  • Semambo and Another v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 76 of 1998)
  • Kibale Ishma v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 21 of 1998)
  • Solomon Ouma Mgele v Republic [1978] LRT 53
  • PRACTICE NOTE [1962] 1 All. E.R. 448

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Uganda Vs. Sulaiman Karoli (Crim. Case No. 56 Of 2002) (Crim. Case No. 56 of 2002) [2003] UGHC 109 (6 March 2003)
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.