Wakilii

Uganda v Teriyeitu Herbert Justus (Criminal Session Case 65 of 1993)

High Court · [1993] UGHC 151 · 1993 Acquittal AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal trial following indictment for defilement, with defence submission of no case to answer under section 71 of the Trial on Indictments Decree
Decision
Accused acquitted and released

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 although the prosecution proved the victim was under 18 years, the unsworn testimony of the child victim that the accused defiled her required corroboration implicating the accused under section 38(3) of the Trial on Indictments Decree. The court found no independent corroborative evidence connecting the accused to the crime. Applying the rule of practice in sexual offence cases that uncorroborated child testimony is dangerous to rely on, the court ruled that the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case. The accused was acquitted.

Outcome

Accused acquitted and released

Facts

The accused was indicted for defilement of a five-year-old girl on 6 January 1993. The prosecution called five witnesses. The victim, in an unsworn statement, stated that the accused caught her returning from a well, took her into a house, removed her knickers, and put his penis in her vagina. She felt pain and bled. She reported immediately to her elder sister and later to her mother who had been away in Kabale for four days. The mother noticed the victim's abnormal gait on her return, observed puss oozing from the vagina and found a hole in the hymen. A doctor examined the victim on 12 January 1993 and found the hymen ruptured approximately six days earlier and puss discharging from the vaginal canal indicating infection. No injuries were found on any other part of the body. Defence counsel submitted no case to answer under section 71 of the Trial on Indictments Decree after the close of the prosecution case.

Issues

  1. Whether a prima facie case requiring the accused to be put on his defence had been established under section 71 of the Trial on Indictments Decree.
  2. Whether the prosecution proved the essential ingredients of defilement, namely that the victim was under 18 years and that sexual intercourse took place.
  3. Whether the unsworn testimony of the child victim required corroboration implicating the accused under section 38(3) of the Trial on Indictments Decree, and if so, whether such corroboration was present.

Orders

  • Accused acquitted.
  • Accused to be released forthwith unless otherwise lawfully held.

Rules and key headnotes

Criminal Procedure — No Case to Answer — Test for Prima Facie Case
A prima facie case is one where, on a full consideration of the evidence, a reasonable tribunal properly directing its mind to the law and evidence could convict if the accused offered no evidence. A mere scintilla of evidence cannot be enough, nor can any amount of discredited or worthless evidence.
Evidence — Unsworn Testimony of Child — Requirement for Corroboration
Under section 38(3) of the Trial on Indictments Decree, where a child of tender years gives unsworn evidence, the accused shall not be liable to be convicted unless such evidence is corroborated by some other material evidence in support thereof implicating him. The corroboration must connect the accused with the crime, not merely confirm that a crime was committed by somebody.
Evidence — Corroboration — Nature and Sufficiency
Corroboration must be independent evidence which affects the accused by connecting him 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. It is not necessary to have confirmation of all the circumstances of the crime; corroboration of some material particular tending to implicate the accused is sufficient.
Evidence — Sexual Offences — Rule of Practice on Uncorroborated Child Testimony
The rule of practice in sexual offence cases is that the judge should warn himself of the danger of acting on the uncorroborated testimony of the complainant, but having done so may convict in the absence of corroboration if satisfied that the evidence is truthful. However, accomplices and children require corroboration because their evidence is regarded as unreliable. This rule applies equally when considering whether a prima facie case has been established at the close of the prosecution case.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (9)

  • Bhatt v R (1957)
  • Uganda v Mafabi and Another (High Court Criminal Case No. 90 of 1974)
  • Solu wa Tutu v R (1930) EACA 183
  • Omari s/o Hassanali v R (1956) 23 EACA 580
  • Abdalla Nabulere and 2 Others v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 1978)
  • Chila v R (1967) EA 722
  • R v Baskerville [1916] 2 KB 568
  • R v Nanlal Ishwerlal Purolit [1942] 9 EACA 58
  • R v Tai Bali Mohamedhai (10 EACA 60)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Uganda v Teriyeitu Herbert Justus (Criminal Session Case 65 of 1993) [1993] UGHC 151 (13 August 1993)
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.