Wakilii

Uganda v Tabu (Criminal High Court Session 131 of 2019)

High Court · [2022] UGHCCRD 3 · 2022 Prima Facie Case Established AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Ruling on whether the accused has a case to answer at the close of the prosecution case in a criminal trial for rape
Decision
Accused put to his defence to answer the charge of rape

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 the prosecution established a prima facie case of rape against the accused. Circumstantial evidence including the victim's description of the assailant matching the accused's appearance, the accused's conduct of fleeing upon arrest, medical evidence of forced intercourse, and the victim's behavioral change corroborated the victim's report. The accused was put to his defence.

Outcome

Accused put to his defence to answer the charge of rape

Facts

On 29 August 2018 at Mirambi village in Kyenjojo District, the victim left her husband in the garden at 1pm to do domestic work. On her way to fetch water, the accused offered her UGX 20,000 for sex. When she refused, he raped her. She returned home with an empty jerry can, her right hand injured and in pain. She described her assailant to her husband as a man with a U-shaped beard wearing a black and white cap. They initially suspected another man but the victim clarified it was the accused who stayed at the bar. When they found the accused wearing the described cap, he fled but was caught. The victim confirmed he was the perpetrator. She subsequently became depressed and left home. Medical examination revealed lower abdominal pain, painful vagina due to forced intercourse, and a painful hand. Torn pink knickers were exhibited.

Issues

  1. Whether the prosecution established a prima facie case against the accused at the close of the prosecution case.
  2. Whether the evidence adduced proved the essential ingredients of rape: that a sexual act was performed on the victim, without her consent, and that it was the accused who performed the act.

Orders

  • The prosecution has established a prima facie case against the accused.
  • The accused is put to his defence.

Rules and key headnotes

Criminal Law & Procedure — Prima Facie Case — Test at Close of Prosecution Case
A prima facie case is established when the evidence adduced is such that a reasonable tribunal, properly directing its mind on the law and evidence, would convict the accused if no evidence or explanation was set up by the defence. The evidence must be sufficient to require the accused to offer an explanation, lest he runs the risk of being convicted. A prima facie case cannot be established by a mere scintilla of evidence or by any amount of worthless, discredited prosecution evidence.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Prima Facie Case — Grounds for Finding No Case to Answer
There are two main considerations justifying a finding that there is no prima facie case: when there has been no evidence to prove an essential ingredient in the alleged offence, or when the evidence adduced by prosecution has been so discredited as a result of cross-examination or is manifestly unreliable that no reasonable court could safely convict on it.
Evidence — Hearsay — Victim's Report to Third Party in Sexual Offences
A report made to a third party by a victim in a sexual offence where she identifies her assailant to a third party is admissible in evidence. However, such evidence on its own is not capable of sustaining a conviction and can only corroborate other credible evidence.
Evidence — Sexual Offences — Proof of Sexual Intercourse or Penetration
The act of sexual intercourse or penetration may be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence and corroborated by medical evidence or other evidence. Though desirable, it is not a hard and fast rule that the victim's evidence must always be adduced in every case of defilement to prove sexual intercourse or penetration. Whatever evidence the prosecution may wish to adduce to prove its case, such evidence must be sufficient to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
Evidence — Circumstantial Evidence — Flight from Scene of Crime as Evidence of Guilt
The conduct of an accused person of running away from the scene of crime or fleeing upon seeing persons approaching clearly shows a guilty mind. The disappearance of an accused person from the area of a crime soon after the incident may provide corroboration to other evidence that he has committed the offence, as such sudden disappearance is incompatible with innocent conduct.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (10)

  • Wabiro alias Musa v R [1960] EA 184
  • Kadiri Kyanju and Others v Uganda [1974] HCB 215
  • Uganda v Maliya Yassin (Criminal Case No. 0143 of 2012)
  • Rananlal T Bhatt v R [1957] EA 332
  • [1962] All ER 448
  • Uganda v Alfred Ateu [1974] HCB 179
  • Mayombwe Patrick v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 2002)
  • Bassita Hussein v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 35 of 1995)
  • Uganda v Yowana Baptist Kabandize [1982] HCB 93
  • Remigious Kiwanuka v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 41 of 1995)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Uganda v Tabu (Criminal High Court Session 131 of 2019) [2022] UGHCCRD 3 (17 February 2022)
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.