Ssebushumba & 2 Ors v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 358 of 2014) [2018] UGCA 58 (30 July 2018)

Flynote

Criminal law

Case summary

On identification court held that none of the victims were able to identify their attackers. The charge and caution statement was unsatisfactory as it was recorded by the same officer who could have memorised the facts in a bid to fabricate the evidence. The investigating officer also participated in the recording of statements and the statement for the second appellant was recorded 11 days after arrest which delay was not explained. The appellants also claimed to have been assaulted. On evaluation of evidence court held that the trial judge failed to evaluate the evidence and the record does not show summing up of evidence to the assessors making the decision a nullity.

---