[2003] UGHCCRD 5

[2003] UGHCCRD 5

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...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2003] UGHCCRD 5
Parties
Prosecutor: Uganda; Defendant: RA 143905 PTE Ntende James; Defendant: Hiire Ahamed Kajamit; Defendant: Waiswa Adam alias Kagende Kadde; Defendant: Baker Kigenyi; Defendant: Twaha Njaye; Defendant: Mpande David alias Abubaker Seguya Nyaluru; Defendant: Waswa Kalinaki alias Nasuru Wabuya; Defendant: Mutwalibu Magomu
Court
HC: Criminal Division (Uganda)
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Judgment Date
27 February 2003
Case Number
HCT-04-CR-SC-0170-2002
Procedural Posture
Criminal Law / Ruling on No Case to Answer
Outcome
all accused found not guilty and discharged
Judges
Rugadya, J
Legal Topics
No Case to Answer, Robbery, Unlawful Possession of Firearms, Government Stores, Burden of Proof
Source Language
english
Criminal Law No Case to Answer Robbery Unlawful Possession of Firearms Government Stores Burden of Proof

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Uganda

Prosecutor

RA 143905 PTE Ntende James

Defendant

Hiire Ahamed Kajamit

Defendant

Waiswa Adam alias Kagende Kadde

Defendant

Baker Kigenyi

Defendant

Twaha Njaye

Defendant

Mpande David alias Abubaker Seguya Nyaluru

Defendant

Waswa Kalinaki alias Nasuru Wabuya

Defendant

Mutwalibu Magomu

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Law / Ruling on No Case to Answer

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the prosecution has made out a prima facie case requiring the accused to make their defence.
  2. 2 Whether the evidence adduced by the prosecution is so discredited or unreliable that no reasonable tribunal would convict.

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

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.