Share
Uganda v Ntende & Ors (HCT-04-CR-SC-0170-2002) [2003] UGHCCRD 5 (27 February 2003)
- Citation
- [2003] UGHCCRD 5
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- HC: Criminal Division (Uganda)
- Panel
- Rugadya, J
- Case number
- HCT-04-CR-SC-0170-2002
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- HC: Criminal Division (Uganda)
- Panel
- Rugadya, J
- Case number
- HCT-04-CR-SC-0170-2002
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that the prosecution's evidence was so totally unreliable and discredited through cross-examination that no reasonable tribunal could convict any of the accused if they offered no defence. Consequently, no case was made out against any of the accused to require them to make their defence. The court therefore entered a finding of not guilty under Section 71(1) of the Trial on Indictments Decree and ordered the discharge of all accused persons.
Court disposition
all accused found not guilty and discharged
Orders
- A finding of not guilty is entered for all accused under S. 71(1) TID.
- All accused are discharged and set free unless held on other lawful charges.
02
Material facts
Parties
Uganda
ProsecutorRA 143905 PTE Ntende James
DefendantHiire Ahamed Kajamit
DefendantWaiswa Adam alias Kagende Kadde
DefendantBaker Kigenyi
DefendantTwaha Njaye
DefendantMpande David alias Abubaker Seguya Nyaluru
DefendantWaswa Kalinaki alias Nasuru Wabuya
DefendantMutwalibu Magomu
Defendant03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Law / Ruling on No Case to Answer
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the prosecution has made out a prima facie case requiring the accused to make their defence.
- 02
Whether the evidence adduced by the prosecution is so discredited or unreliable that no reasonable tribunal would convict.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The prosecution argued that a case had been made out against A.1 for unlawful possession of firearms and government stores, and sought to have the accused put on their defence.
- Respondent
- The accused denied the charges and, through cross-examination, challenged the reliability and sufficiency of the prosecution's evidence.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Section 71(1) Trial on Indictments Decree (TID)
A no case to answer is upheld where prosecution evidence is so discredited or unreliable that no reasonable tribunal would convict if the accused offered no defence.
- 02
General criminal procedure
The burden is on the prosecution to establish a prima facie case before the accused is called to make a defence.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that the prosecution's evidence was so totally unreliable and discredited through cross-examination that no reasonable tribunal could convict any of the accused if they offered no defence. Consequently, no case was made out against any of the accused to require them to make their defence. The court therefore entered a finding of not guilty under Section 71(1) of the Trial on Indictments Decree and ordered the discharge of all accused persons.
Court disposition
all accused found not guilty and discharged
- A finding of not guilty is entered for all accused under S. 71(1) TID.
- All accused are discharged and set free unless held on other lawful charges.
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
HOLDEN AT MBALE
HCT-04-CR-SC-0170-2002
UGANDA……………………………………………………………………PROSECUTOR
VERSUS
A.1 RA 143905 PTE NTENDE JAMES
A.2 HIIRE AHAMED KAJAMIT
A.3 WAISWA ADAM alias KAGENDE KADDE
A.4 BAKER KIGENYI
A.5 TWAHA NJAYE
A.6 MPANDE DAVID alias ABUBAKER SEGUYA NYALURU
A.7 WASWA KALINAKI alias NASURU WABUYA
A.8 MUTWALIBU MAGOMU……………………………………………………ACCUSED
BEFORE: THE HON MR. JUSTICE RUGADYA-ATWOKI
RULING
The 5 accused were charged with robbery. They all denied the charges.
Prosecution called 2 witnesses and upon failing to secure any other, closed its case. I was asked to find that a case was made out in respect of A. I for unlawful possession of firearms and government stores.
For a no case to answer to be upheld, it must be shown that the prosecution evidence is so discredited through cross-examination or is so totally unreliable that no reasonable tribunal would convict upon the same if accused offered no defence. That is exactly the position in this case. The prosecution evidence is so totally unreliable that if any of the 5 accused was to offer no evidence, this court would not convict them.
In the circumstances I find that no case has been made out to require any of these accused to make their defence.
Under S. 71(1) TID, a finding of not guilty is entered. I hereby discharge them and they are to be set free and at liberty unless they are held on other lawful charges.
I so order.
RUGADYA-ATWOKI
JUDGE
27/2/2003
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.