Uganda v Kakooza (Criminal Session Case No. 57 of 1988) [1990] UGHCCRD 2 (4 January 1990)

Flynote

Criminal law|Evidence Law

Case summary

The trial judge noted that the ingredients that had to be proved were theft, the use or threat of the use of violence, the possession of deadly weapon and the participation of the accused. It was held that theft of an uncertain sum against one of the deceased persons had been proven but not against the other deceased person. Additionally, the trial judge found that violence had indeed been used and a deadly weapon (a gun) had been possessed and fired. Regarding the participation of the accused, the trial judge stated that where prosecution relies only on identification evidence to incriminate an accused person, such evidence must be water tight to justify conviction. The trial judge found the evidence adduced wanting. In particular, there were sharp contradictions amongst the witnesses regarding what the accused wore during the attack, and there was no reasonable explanation why the witnesses had not reported the accused to the police the next morning. Furthermore, it was stated that the witnesses may have mistakenly identified the accused on account of the confusion that must have been prevalent during the attack. The judge also reasoned that the accused, who was well known to the victims, would not have easily revealed himself to them during the attack. His conduct after the attack was held to be inconsistent with the conduct of a guilty man and his testimony was generally found to be believable and detailed. Thus, his alibi succeeded. Consequently, the accused was acquitted.

---