Share
Uganda v Okabo and 2 Others (Criminal Case 30 of 2017) [2022] UGHCCRD 56 (28 September 2022)
- Citation
- [2022] UGHCCRD 56
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- HC: Criminal Division (Uganda)
- Panel
- Byaruhanga Rugyema, J
- Case number
- Criminal Case 30 of 2017
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- HC: Criminal Division (Uganda)
- Panel
- Byaruhanga Rugyema, J
- Case number
- Criminal Case 30 of 2017
- 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 failed to establish a prima facie case against the accused persons. The evidence presented was insufficient to prove the essential ingredients of aggravated robbery, as the victim did not testify, no community members who arrested the accused were called as witnesses, and none of the alleged stolen properties were exhibited in court. Without direct or circumstantial evidence placing the accused at the scene or linking them to the offence, the court held that no reasonable tribunal could convict on the evidence adduced. Consequently, the accused persons were entitled to an acquittal without being required to make a defence.
Court disposition
acquittal
Orders
- Each accused person is found not guilty and discharged forthwith.
02
Material facts
Parties
Uganda
ApplicantOkabo Geoffrey
DefendantOpiemu Richard
DefendantOkur Both Sinai
DefendantAmounts and remedies
- Value of Stolen Items: UGX 700,000
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Trial / Ruling on Prima Facie Case at Close of Prosecution
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the prosecution evidence established a prima facie case against the accused persons to require them to be put on their defence.
- 02
Whether essential ingredients of aggravated robbery were proved by the prosecution.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The prosecution alleged that the accused persons stole various items from Ngara Tullow well site and used or threatened violence against the guard, Opira Justine. The prosecution relied on the testimony of Oriek Charles (PW1), who stated that the accused were found with some of the stolen items and were arrested by the community and police.
- Respondent
- The accused persons pleaded not guilty. The defence highlighted the lack of testimony from the victim, Opira Justine, and the absence of evidence from community members who arrested A1. Additionally, none of the alleged stolen properties were exhibited in court, undermining the prosecution's case.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
R. T. Bhatt v R [1957] EA 332
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.
- 02
Practice Note of Lord Parker [1962] ALL E. R. 448; Uganda v Alfred Ateu [1974] HCB 179
No prima facie case is made out where there is no evidence to prove an essential ingredient of the alleged offence, or where the prosecution evidence is so discredited or unreliable that no reasonable court could convict on it.
- 03
Section 73(1) Trial on Indictments Act
An accused person is entitled to an acquittal if, at the close of the prosecution case, there is no evidence requiring him to make a defence.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case against the accused persons. The evidence presented was insufficient to prove the essential ingredients of aggravated robbery, as the victim did not testify, no community members who arrested the accused were called as witnesses, and none of the alleged stolen properties were exhibited in court. Without direct or circumstantial evidence placing the accused at the scene or linking them to the offence, the court held that no reasonable tribunal could convict on the evidence adduced. Consequently, the accused persons were entitled to an acquittal without being required to make a defence.
Obiter and limits
- If the accused persons chose to remain silent in their defence, they would still be entitled to an acquittal due to the lack of evidence against them.
- The absence of key witnesses and exhibits fatally undermined the prosecution's case.
Court disposition
acquittal
- Each accused person is found not guilty and discharged forthwith.
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 MASINDI CRIMINAL CASE NO. 0030 OF 2017
UGANDA ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: PROSECUTION
*VERSUS*
| 1.<br>OKABO GEOFFREY | | |--------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------| | 2.<br>OPIEMU RICHARD | ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ACCUSED | | 3.<br>OKUR<br>BOTH SINAI | |
RULING
*Before: Hon. Justice Byaruhanga Jesse Rugyema*
- [1] The 3 accused persons; Okabo Geoffrey (A1), Opiemu Richard (A2) and Okur Both Sinai (A3) were indicted of the offence of Aggravated Robbery C/ss 285 & 286 PCA. It is alleged that on the 21st December, 2015 at Ngara Tullow well site in the Bulisa District, the 3 accused persons stole 10 (ten) plastic chairs, 2 (two) Fire Extinguishers, 3 (three) spades and a Torch all valued at Ugx. 700,000= and at or immediately, before or immediately after the time of stealing used or threatened to use actual violence on Opira Justine, a Guard at Ngara Tullow well site. The accused persons pleaded not guilty to the offence. - [2] At trial, the prosecution led evidence of only one witness, Oriek Charles (Pw1), a security officer of Saracen (U) ltd who testified briefly that on 21st December, 2015, at around 2.05 a.m. 3 guards; Opira Justine, Mukonyezi Kennedy and Okwaya Charles while on duty at Ngara Tullow well site were attacked by unknown people, who jumped into the site armed with pangas, spears and arrows and stole 10 plastic chairs, 3 spades, 1 umbrella stand, 2 fire extinguishers, 1 baton, 1 re-chargeable
torch and an "occurrence book" where security report occurrences.
- [3] On the 5th March, 2016, at around 1.18 p.m., a one Pirwot Alex, and a one Onwang alerted (PW1) that Okabo Geoffrey (A1) was believed to be in possession of the stolen items which he had buried and was planning to remove and ferry them away. PW1 also alerted Police about the same and it proceeded to A1's place. Police found when the community had already arrested A1 with the 2 fire extinguishers, 2 chairs, a baton and the torch. He was handed over to Ngara Police. A1 was an ex-staff of Saracen (U) ltd. - [4] The prosecution closed its case on the sole evidence of Pw1. The issue is whether PW1's evidence disclosed a *prima facie* case that would require each of the accused persons be put on their defence. - [5] The complainant in the instant case, a one Opira Justine who was named in the indictment as the victim was not called upon to testify. Secondly, none of the community members who participated in the arrest of A1 and found him with the alleged stolen properties testified in Court. Lastly none of the alleged stolen properties found with A1 were exhibited in Court. - [6] 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 person if no evidence or explanation was set up by the defence; R. T. Bhatt v R [1957] EA 332. The evidence adduced at this stage, should be sufficient to require the accused to offer an explanation, lest he runs the risk of being convicted.
- [7] There are mainly two considerations justifying a finding that there is no *prima facie* case made out as stated in the Practice Note of Lord Parker which was published and reported in [1962] ALL E. R. 448 and also applied in Uganda v Alfred Ateu [1974] HCB 179 as follows: - *a) When there has been no evidence to prove an essential ingredient in the alleged offence, or* - *b) 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.* - [8] In the instant case, in the absence of the evidence of the victim Opira Justine, a member of community who arrested A1 with the alleged stolen properties and generally, evidence pointing at the 3 accused persons placing them at the scene of the crime during the night of 21st December, 2015, I find that there has been no evidence to prove an essential ingredient of the alleged offence that either of the accused persons participated in the attack and robbery of the alleged stolen properties. - [9] As a result, I find that the prosecution has not made out a *prima facie* case requiring either of the accused persons being put on his defence. If they choose to keep quiet while on their defence, they would still be entitled to an acquittal. I do therefore find each of the accused persons not guilty of the alleged offence and I do in the premises find each of them not guilty, (S.73(1) TIA) and discharge them forth with.
Dated at Masindi this 28th day of September, 2022.
Byaruhanga Jesse Rugyema JUDGE
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.