Court name
High Court of Uganda
Judgment date
29 May 1991

Uganda v Joseph Webohe (Criminal Session Case-1992/193) [1991] UGHC 5 (29 May 1991);

Cite this case
[1991] UGHC 5

 

 
THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT FORTPORTAL
CRIMINAL SESSIONS CASE NO.MPP 193 OF 1992

UGANDA::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: PROSECUTOR
VERSUS
JOSEPH WEBOHE:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::ACCUSED
BEFORE; HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.W.N.TSKOOKO

 JUDGEMENT
 

In this case the Indictment initially contained the accused and two other persons (William Sunday and Charles Baguma). Having noted that these two had in fact not been committed for trial by Magistrate’s Court, I permitted alteration of the indictment by deleting the names of William Sunday and Charles Baguma before the hearing commenced.

The accused Joseph Webohe is indicted for the offence of Robbery Contrary to Section 273 (2) of the Penal Code 4ct. The particulars of offence allege that the accused with others still at large on the 15th of July, 1983 at Busoro Village, in Kabarole District robbed Silvano Kibubu of cash shilling
s 2,000/ one sack full of .cassava flour, half a tin of groundnuts, five kilos of salt all valued at shillings 5,ooo/= shs 78,000/= etc and at or immediately after the time of the said robbery threatened to use deadly weapons to wit pangas, knives and spears on the said Silvano Kibubu. The amount of money could have been made one figure instead of two.
This however does not affect the case.
The prosecution called five witnesses.
These are Silvano Kibubu (pw1), John Baguma (pw3), George William Ruhweza (PW3),No. 9962 D/CPL. D. C. Ongwen (PW4) and No 18799 D/C, Egesa (PW5). These last two gave immaterial evidence.
This is one of those rare cases where I have had to invoke the Provisions of Section 117 of the Evidence ct in order to receive the evidence of PW1 who is dumb. That Section States: “ A witness who
is unable to speak may give his evidence in any other manner in which he can make it intelligible, as by writing or by signs; but such writing must be written or the signs made in open Court. Evidence so given shall be deemed to be oral evidence.
 PW3, a half brother of and neighbor to PWI interpreted