Uganda v Isiko & Anor (Criminal Session Case No. 148/92) [1992] UGHCCRD 2 (10 December 1992)

Flynote

Criminal law|Evidence Law

Case summary

The second accused had escaped before the commencement of the trial and so the trial only proceeded in respect of the first accused. It was alleged that in concert with other others, the first accused had attacked the home of his brother and killed him in addition to seriously injuring his wife. The trial judge held that the ingredients of both offences had been sufficiently proven and went on to consider the issue of the first accused’s participation. The prosecution relied on the evidence of one witness to identify the accused as one of the attackers. The trial judge noted that as a matter of practice, the identification evidence of one witness must be received with caution and should be watertight and free from mistaken identity especially where the conditions that favour correct identification such as lighting, distance between the witness and the accused, duration of observation, and whether the accused was known to the accused—are lacking. The identifying witness’ testimony was, however, discredited by serious contradictions such as whether the available light source was a kerosene lamp (‘tadooba’) or the attackers’ torches, and how many of the attackers the witness had identified. Additionally, it was queried why the witness had not mentioned the name of the accused, who was her brother-in-law, to the police or to the two persons that had been present in the compound that night. It was also noted that the witness had awoken from her sleep while her husband was already being attacked and she thus was not properly composed to make a clear identification. Consequently, it was held that there was no proper/sufficient identification and the accused’s alibi was sustained, leading to his acquittal on both counts.

---