Share
Uganda v Nkulanga & Ors (Criminal Session Case No. 56 of 1988) [1989] UGHCCRD 3 (12 December 1989)
- Citation
- [1989] UGHCCRD 3
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- HC: Criminal Division (Uganda)
- Panel
- Kato, J
- Case number
- Criminal Session Case No. 56 of 1988
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- HC: Criminal Division (Uganda)
- Panel
- Kato, J
- Case number
- Criminal Session Case No. 56 of 1988
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that none of the admitted evidence connected the accused, Aberi Tusingwire, to the offences of murder or robbery. Applying the principles governing submissions of no case to answer, the court held that no reasonable tribunal would convict the accused if he remained silent after the close of the prosecution's case. Consequently, the court determined that no prima facie case had been made out for the accused to answer in respect of both counts and acquitted him under section 71(1) of the Trial on Indictments Decree.
Court disposition
acquitted
Orders
- The accused Aberi Tusingwire is acquitted on both counts of murder and robbery under section 71(1) of the Trial on Indictments Decree.
- He is to be set free unless held for other lawful purposes.
02
Material facts
Parties
Uganda
RespondentAberi Tusingwire
Defendant Counsel: Mr. Matovu03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Trial / Submission of No Case to Answer
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the prosecution has established a prima facie case against the accused for murder and robbery.
- 02
Whether the admitted evidence connects the accused to the alleged offences.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Defence counsel argued that the evidence presented by the prosecution did not establish a prima facie case against the accused, as none of the admitted evidence connected him to the offences of murder or robbery.
- Respondent
- Prosecution counsel agreed with the defence submission, conceding that the evidence did not make out a prima facie case for the accused to answer.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Section 71(1) of the Trial on Indictments Decree
A prima facie case must be established by the prosecution before the accused is required to answer the charges.
- 02
Section 64 of the Trial on Indictments Decree
Evidence admitted under section 64 of the Trial on Indictments Decree must connect the accused to the alleged offences to warrant a conviction.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that none of the admitted evidence connected the accused, Aberi Tusingwire, to the offences of murder or robbery. Applying the principles governing submissions of no case to answer, the court held that no reasonable tribunal would convict the accused if he remained silent after the close of the prosecution's case. Consequently, the court determined that no prima facie case had been made out for the accused to answer in respect of both counts and acquitted him under section 71(1) of the Trial on Indictments Decree.
Court disposition
acquitted
- The accused Aberi Tusingwire is acquitted on both counts of murder and robbery under section 71(1) of the Trial on Indictments Decree.
- He is to be set free unless held for other lawful purposes.
Source and reliance status
HC: Criminal Division (Uganda)
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
HC: Criminal Division (Uganda)
Judgment
THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA
HOLDEN AT MASAKA
CRIMINAL SESSION CASE NO. 56 OF 1988
(Original Crim. Case No. 473 of 1985 of the Chief Magistrate's Court of Masaka).
UGANDA ...................................
versus
........... ACCUSED
Al. JOHN NKULANGA JOSEPH SEGIRINYA $A2.$
NO. UD. 14024 ABERI TUSINGWIRE $A3.$
BEFORE: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C. M. KATO
RULING
This ruling is in respect of a submission of no case to answer made on behalf of the accused person by his Counsel Mr. Matovu.
At the close of the case for prosecution, the learned counsel for the defence submitted that according to the evidence available, prosecution had not made a prima facie case for the accused person to answer. The learned counsel for prosecution on his part agreed with the defence counsel's contention.
The back-ground of the case is that the accused person No. UD. 14024 Aberi Tusingwire was indicted with 2 other persons; John Nkulanga (A1) and Joseph Segirinya (A2) for the offences of Murder contrary to section 183 of the Penal Code and Robbery contrary to sections 272 and 273(2) of the Penal Code.
When the case came up for hearing the state entered Nolle Prosequi in respect of Al and A2 and the case proceeded against the present accused (A3). The prosecution presented evidence of six witnesses and all that evidence was admitted under the provisions of section 64 of Trial on Indictments Decree.
$...12$
No any other witness was physically called to testify before the court.
I have carefully looked at the admitted evidence and listened to argument of defence counsel and I have found that all the evidence which was admitted does not anywhere connect the present accused with any of the two offences which he is alleged to have committed. Applying the facts of the present case to the principles governing this sort of submission, I find that no reasonable tribunal would proceed to convict the accused, if he decided to remain silent after the close of the case for prosecution.
In these circumstances, I find that no prima facie case has been made out for the accused person Aberi Tusingwire to answer in respect of both counts. He is accordingly acquitted on all the two counts under the provisions of section $71(1)$ of T. I. D. and he is to be set free unless he is being held in prison for some other lawful purposes.
> $\overline{K}$ C. M. KATO JUDGE. $12/12/89.$
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.