[2016] UGHCCRD 23
The court found that while theft of property and the use or threat to use a deadly weapon were proven by the complainant's evidence, there was no evidence placing the accused at the scene or identifying him as a participant in the robbery. The mere similarity in size between the accused and one of the robbers was...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] UGHCCRD 23
- Parties
- Applicant: Uganda; Defendant: Kakembo Umar
- Court
- HC: Criminal Division (Uganda)
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Case Number
- HCT-06-CR-SC-0076 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Trial / Ruling on Submission of No Case to Answer
- Outcome
- acquittal
- Judges
- Tibulya, J
- Legal Topics
- Aggravated Robbery, Identification Evidence, Elements of Offence
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Uganda
Applicant
Kakembo Umar
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Trial / Ruling on Submission of No Case to Answer
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the prosecution has adduced sufficient evidence to require the accused to make a defence for the offence of aggravated robbery.
- 2 Whether the accused was properly identified as a participant in the robbery.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that while theft of property and the use or threat to use a deadly weapon were proven by the complainant's evidence, there was no evidence placing the accused at the scene or identifying him as a participant in the robbery. The mere similarity in size between the accused and one of the robbers was deemed insufficient to establish participation. As a result, a major ingredient of the offence—participation of the accused—was not proved. The court therefore upheld the submission of no case to answer and acquitted the accused.
Court Disposition
acquittal
Orders
- The accused is acquitted of the offence of aggravated robbery.
- The accused is to be discharged forthwith.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
**THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA**
**IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT MASAKA**
**HCT-06-CR-SC-0076 OF 2013**
**UGANDA........................................................................................................ PROSECUTOR**
**VERSUS**
**KAKEMBO UMAR................................................................................. ACCUSED**
**RULING**
**BEFORE: Hon. Lady Justice Margaret Tibulya.**
This is a ruling on a submission of no case to answer. The accused stands with aggravated robbery contrary to section 285 and 286(2) of the Penal Code Act. It was alleged that on the 28th of November 2011 at Kagulukiro village he robbed **MUTAGUBYA SABAYI**of his motor cycle Reg No. UDG 285. S Bajaj Boxer valued at 2,000,000/=, cash 100,000/= and a Nokia mobile phone 2300 worth 100,000/= all valued at 2,200,000/= and at the time or immediately before or immediately after threatened to use a deadly weapon to wit a gun to thesaid **MUTAGUBYA SABAYI.**
The brief facts that in the night of 28th of November 2011 around 7:20 pm at Kagulukiro, the complainant who was riding a motor cycle met a man who was staggering in the road as if he was drunk. When he tried to dodge him, the man pushed the motor cycle. The victim and the person he was carrying fell with it. Immediately another man emerged from the bush. He had a gun. The armed man assaulted the person the complainant had been carrying on the motor cycle (Pw2) **Sserwadda Yusuf**. The motor cycle, 100,000/= and the victims mobile phone were taken. His legs and hands were tied and he was left in the bush. He did not identify the attackers, but the accused’s size is the same as the robber who had emerged from the bush. (Pw2) **Sserwadda Yusuf** did not identify the attackers as well**.**
The accused was charged on the basis of the evidence that his size is the same as that of the robber the witnesses had seen. At the close of the prosecution case Counsel for the accused submitted that the state had not adduced sufficient evidence to warrant the accused to make a defense.
A submission of no case to answer will be upheld inter-alia when a major ingredient of the offence has not been proved.
**THE INGREDIENTS FOR AGGRAVATED ROBBERY.**
1. Theft of property, 2. use or threat to use a deadly weapon during immediately before or immediately after the theft or robbery or causing death or grievous harm, 3. Participation of the accused.
There is no doubt that theft of property and the use or threat to use a deadly weapon during immediately before or immediately after the theft or robbery were proven by the evidence of the complainant. The only issue is whether there is sufficient evidence that the accused participated in the robbery.
None of the witnesses saw the accused during the robbery. The contention that the accused’s size is the same as that of one of the robbers is no evidence at all. I did not find evidence to ground a decision to require the accused to make his defence. There is no evidence placing him at the scene for purposes of committing the offence. I accordingly up-hold the submission of no case to answer and acquit the accused of the offence of aggravated robbery. He be discharged forth-with.
Court. Ruling read in open court.
**Margaret Tibulya**
**Judge**
**27th April 2016**