Ahimbisibwe Vs Uganda (Criminal Appeal No.090 of 2009) [2016] UGCA 84 (6 December 2016)

Flynote

Criminal law

Case summary

Court considered this ground of appeal. Court held that the trial judge had properly addressed himself and convicted the appellants on the doctrine of recent possession, for the appellants could not explain how they had come into possession of a stolen motorcycle which raised a presumption that they had participated in the murder and robbery of the deceased motorcycle owner. Court also held that the trial judge erred in failing to resolve the dispute of the appellants’ age at time of commission of offence in his favour and that therefore court should have referred matter to the Family court in line with section 104 of the Children Act. Court therefore set aside the 20 year sentence passed to the appellants and set both appellants free.

---