Wakilii

UGANDA versus KYEYUNE PAUL (HCT-03-CR-SC-137 OF 2006) (HCT-03-CR-SC-137 OF 2006)

High Court · [2007] UGHC 19 · 2007 Acquittal Entered AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance criminal trial for defilement
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

The High Court acquitted the accused of defilement. While the prosecution proved that unlawful sexual intercourse occurred with a victim under 18 years, and the victim identified the accused, her evidence as a child of tender age required corroboration by independent material evidence under section 40(3) of the Trial on Indictments Act. The father's testimony was derived from the victim's account and did not constitute independent corroboration. The accused's alibi raised reasonable doubt regarding his participation at the material time.

Outcome

Accused acquitted and discharged

Facts

On 15 December 2002, the victim, Lydia Nanyombi (aged 8 years), was drawing water at a well in Matale village, Mukono District. The prosecution alleged that the accused met her there, and after she drew water for him, he pulled her to a banana plantation and forcefully had sexual intercourse with her, promising payment but not delivering it. He warned her not to report. She returned home where only siblings were present. The following morning she reported the incident to her father, who took her to local authorities and then to police. Medical examination on 17 December 2002 found signs of penetration, a ruptured hymen estimated to have occurred at least two days prior, and inflammation consistent with force. The accused denied the offence, claiming he met the victim at the well at 2:00 p.m. (not 4:00 p.m. as alleged) and was in the forest collecting firewood with his employer's family at the time of the alleged assault. He suggested the allegations were fabricated due to disputes with the victim's family.

Issues

  1. Whether the accused, Kyeyune Paul, is guilty of the offence of defilement contrary to section 129 of the Penal Code Act

Orders

  • Accused found not guilty of the offence of defilement contrary to section 129 of the Penal Code Act.
  • Accused acquitted and set free forthwith unless held on other charges.

Rules and key headnotes

Evidence — Corroboration — Children of Tender Age — Section 40(3) Trial on Indictments Act — Requirement for Independent Material Evidence
Evidence of a child of tender age given under section 40(3) of the Trial on Indictments Act requires corroboration by independent material evidence before a court can base a conviction upon it. Evidence derived solely from information given by the child whose testimony requires corroboration does not constitute the required independent material evidence.
Evidence — Corroboration — Sexual Offences — Nature of Material Evidence Required
Material or independent evidence sufficient to corroborate a child victim's testimony under section 40(3) of the Trial on Indictments Act may include direct or circumstantial evidence from a witness testifying to seeing or hearing the accused in action or speaking with the victim at the material time, or scientific examination findings such as the accused's blood or other cells on the victim's body.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Alibi — Burden of Proof — Duty of Prosecution to Disprove
An accused person who sets up an alibi as a defence does not assume the burden of proving that alibi. The burden remains on the prosecution to prove that the accused was at the scene of the crime and not at a different place where he claims to have been at the material time the crime was committed.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Burden of Proof — Reasonable Doubt — Resolution in Favour of Accused
Where the evidence raises reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused, the court must resolve that doubt in favour of the accused.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (9)

  • Woolmington v DPP [1935] AC 462
  • Okethi Okale & Others v R [1965] EA 555
  • Lwanga Yusuf v Uganda [1971] HCB 280
  • R v Achan Abel [1972] 1 ULR 13
  • Mushikoma Watete alias Peter Wakhokha & Others v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 2000)
  • R v Chamlon Were Olango [1937] 4 EACA 46
  • Abdu Ngobi v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 42 of 1995)
  • Wandera Alex Vs Uganda, S.C.C. Crim. Appeal No. /95 (unreported)
  • Siraji Sajabi & 2 Others v Uganda (Court of Appeal Criminal Appeal No. 31 of 1998)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

UGANDA versus KYEYUNE PAUL (HCT-03-CR-SC-137 OF 2006) (HCT-03-CR-SC-137 OF 2006) [2007] UGHC 19 (22 October 2007)
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.