Court name
High Court of Uganda
Case number
HCT-05-CR-SC-2002/211
Judgment date
15 May 2003

Uganda v Bbosa Godfrey & Ors (HCT-05-CR-SC-2002/211) [2003] UGHC 33 (15 May 2003);

Cite this case
[2003] UGHC 33

 

 
THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT MBARARA
 
 
CASE NO: HCT-05-CR-SC-0211 OF 2002

UGANDA :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: PROSECUTOR

 
VERSUS

A1. BBOSA GODFREY
 A2.      MWEBEMBEZI DAVID (alias DEO
 
A3. RA.No. 14717758 PTE WABULO KABIBU :::: ACCUSED
 A4.      BUKABEEBA AMOS
 
A5       TUMWEBAZE
 

 
BEFORE: HON. MR. JUSTICE PAUL K. MUGAMBA
JUDGMENT:-

 
 
Bbosa Godfrey (A) and Mwebembezi David alia Deo (A2) are indicted for aggravated robbery contrary to sections 272 and 273 (2) of the Penal Code Act. Initially five persons were being charged. However at the close of the prosecution case A3, A4 and A5 were found with no case to answer and were acquitted.
 

Six witnesses were called by the prosecution in support of its case. These were Seeta Wilson (PW1), Brenda Arinaitwe (PW2), Joseph Karokora (PW3) Karikona Fred (PW4) Benon Baryamanya (PW5) and D.C. Ofwono John (PW6).

The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on the night of 30
th June 2001 at Bwegiragye village in Bushenyi District the two accused and other at large robbed Seeta Wilson of cash Shs.50,000/=, a wall clock and a radio. Four days after the robbery A2 was arrested in possession of the clock within Ishaka Town. A1 also was arrested.

In defence A1 gave a statement on oath as did A2. Theirs was a defence of alibi. While A1 called no witnesses on his behalf, a witness was called on behalf of A2.

The prosecution has a duty to prove the case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. See
Okethi Okale & Others Vs Uganda [1965] EA 555. In particular the following ingredients ought to be proved:
a)      
That there was theft;
b)       That there was violence;
c)       That a deadly weapon was used or was threatened to be used; and
d)       That accused participated in committing the crime.

It is pertinent to discuss the above elements in light of available evidence.

Regarding theft, both PW1 and PW2 testified that property was stolen from their house on the occasion. In particular PW2 was able to identify the clock that was stolen from their house with the name