Uganda v R.O.D. (Criminal Session Case 1 of 2026) [2026] UGHC 905 (19 August 2026)

Page | 1 THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA HOLDEN AT KITGUM CRIMINAL SESSION CASE No. 01/2026. (ARISING FROM JUVENILE CRIMINAL CASE - JA 014/2025: KITGUM & CRB No. 672/2025: KITGUM). 5 UGANDA PROSECUTOR Versus R.O.D. JUVENILE BEFORE: HON. MR. JUSTICE PHILIP W. MWAKA. RULING. 10 Introduction and Background. [1]. The Juvenile (Accused) – hereinafter referenced for privacy as R.O.D. – stands indicted on a count of Aggravated Defilement contrary to Sections 116 (3) (4) (a) (b) of the Penal Code Act, Cap. 128 . The stated particulars of th e offence in the Indictment are that the Juvenile on the 1st day of September 2025 15 at Bobi “B” Cell village in Kitgum District being a person who is HIV positive performed a sexual act with a girl aged five (5) years, referenced similarly as A.P. [2]. The Indictment is dated the 30th October 2025 and the Juvenile was committed to the High Court for Trial on the 25th November 2025. [3]. The Juvenile was arraigned before this Court on the 17th August 2026. He 20 pleaded not guilty to the charge of aggravated defilement. Upon appointment of the Assessors Ms. Lamunu Esther, Mr. Sema David and Mr. Okumu Geoffrey Akera the Trial commenced. Page | 2 The Prosecution’s Case. [4]. The Prosecution presented the testimony and evidence of three (3) witnesses: - Acan Beatrice , PW1, Okello Francis , PW2, and No. 55070, D/Sgt. Masagwai Sam, DW3. [5]. The first Prosecution witness, Acan Beatrice, PW1, 33 testified that she is the 5 biological mother of AP now age 6 years old and whom was born on 9th August 2020. The Juvenile is the child of her sister-in-law, Ayugi Florence, and they live in the same Bobi “B” village where they are neighbours. She testified that on the 1st September 2025, she went to the garden at 7:00 am that was about 1kilomet re from her home. While in the garden at about 4:00 pm she received a phone call 10 from Omona Alfred, brother of Ayugi Florence, informing her that Oscar Lubangatwero, her son aged 16 and a brother of AP had told him that the Juvenile was “playing” with AP. The Court observes that this appears to be third hand information. It is clearly hearsay. It is obvious that PW1 did not observe any alleged occurrence between the Juvenile and AP relying on “reports”. 15 [6]. It is her testimony that she returned home at 5:00 pm and found that Ayugi Florence the mother of the Juvenile and her mother had taken A P to Kitgum Matidi Government hospital. She did not go to the hospital that evening. Ayugi Florence brought AP back from the hospital at about 5:00 pm, in any case before dark. She observed AP and found that there was “nothing bad”. She inspected her 20 genitals and there was “nothing bad” on her genitals. The genitals were normal. The hospital had prescribed Post E xposure Proxylaxis medicine (PEP) as a preventive measure for HIV/AIDS that she administered for a month. It is her testimony that Florence Ayugi and Oy ella Mariana took AP to the hospi tal because it was believed the Juvenile had HIV/AIDS. The next day PW1 took 25 AP to hospital together with Ayugi Florence and the Juvenile where a Doctor examined her, performed tests on her for HIV/AIDS and found her negative. Page | 3 [7]. Another Doctor examined her including checking her genitals and found that there was “nothing bad ” but still recommended taking the PEP tablets for prevention. It was her te stimony that she was satisfied that not hing had happened and told the Police that the matter should end. Apparently the matter was resurrected after a few days and reported to the Police. Hence, this trial. 5 [8]. The Court is also cognizant that PW1 referenced reports that her son Oscar , AP’s brother, had told her that he had in turn been informed by AP about an alleged incident under a shea nut tree in their garden about 10 metres away from their home. Again, this constitutes second hand hearsay information. [9]. In cross-examination, PW1 reiterated that she was convinced that the Juvenile 10 did not “sleep” with her daughter. She did not witness any such incident. She was also satisfied with the Doctor’s finding that there was nothing wrong. There was no re-examination. [10]. The second prosecution witness, Okello Francis, PW2, 47, testified that as a Clinical Officer – Health Worker, on the 3rd September 2025 at Kitgum Matidi 15 Health Centre 3, he examined AP on PF3A as a suspected victim of sexual abuse and determined her age as five (5) years old and examined her private parts. His finding was that there was no evidence of sexual abuse. In his opinion, her private parts were intact. He took a blood sample from A P that came out negative for HIV/AIDS. He prescribed for her PEP out of an abundance of caution in case 20 of exposure. The Court admitted PF3A on its Record as “PEX1”. [11]. It was his testimony that he also examined the Juvenile on PF24A who was a male adult 14 years old . He took a blood sample that he did not test for HIV/AIDS. This he explained was because the Juvenile was a client of the health centre from which he received HIV medication. His mental status was normal. He 25 examined the Juvenile’s genitals and his opinion was that they were “ok”. [12]. The Court admitted PF24A on its Record as PEX2. Page | 4 [13]. In cross-examination, PW2 testified that on examining A P’s vagina, there were no bruises, tears, the membrane of the hymen was intact and the colour of the vagina was normal. He reiterated that he prescribed PEP out of an abundance of caution. There was no re-examination. [14]. The third prosecution witness, No. 55070, D/Sgt. Masagwai Sam, 52, PW3, a 5 Police Officer testified that he visited the scene of the alleged incident and investigated the allegations that are said to have occurred on the 1st September 2025. The case was reported on the 3rd September 2025. Two days later. He stated that AP led him together with her mother PW1 to the alleged scene of the incident that he described as was under a shea nut tree. 10 [15]. In contradiction of PW1, he stated that the claimed scene at a shea nut tree was 70 metres from PW1’s home. PW3 took photographs that the Court admitted on its Record as PEX3 and PEX4. The Court admitted on its Record a sketch map PW3 drew as PEX5. It was his testimony that he did not speak t he Acholi language that AP and her moth er spoke. PW3 stated that AP did not tell him 15 that she had been defiled. [16]. In cross-examination, PW3 stated that he did not recover any physical evidence at the scene of the incident. In addition, as part of his investigation, he did not interview Oscar from whom the original information had come and had claimed AP had informed him of the incident. 20 [17]. The Prosecution closed its case after the testimony of PW3. [18]. The Defense submitted that on the basis of the testimony of the Prosecution’s three (3) witnesses and the evidence presented at the Trial, the Prosecution had not established a Prima Facie case of Aggravated Defilement against the Juvenile whom had No Case to Answer. 25 Page | 5 The Defence Submissions on No Case to Answer. [19]. The Defence submitted that the Prosecution had not established a prima facie case of Aggravated Defilement against the Juvenile and that the Juvenile did not have a Case to Answer. The Defence cited inter alia Ramanlal Trambaklal Bhatt Vs. R [1957] EA 332 and contended that failure to establish a prima facie case arises 5 in circumstances : Firstly, when the testimony and evidence presented by the Prosecution has not proved all the essential elements or ingredients of the offence a person (the Juvenile) is charged with . Secondly, when the testimony and evidence adduced by the Prosecution ha s been so discredited because of cross-examination or is otherwise so manifestly unreliable that no reasonable 10 competent Tribunal could safely convict on it or otherwise require a person (the Juvenile) to be put to his defence. [20]. This is under Section 74(1) of the Trial on Indictments Act, Cap. 25 on the basis that a prima facie case had not been made out by the Prosecution against the Juvenile and emphasizing that the burden to prove all the ingredients of the 15 offence of Aggravated Defilement in the case lay on the Prosecution at a standard the Defence stated as of “beyond reasonable doubt”. The burden does not shift with the Juvenile presumed innocent until proven guilty. [21]. Here, the Defence submitted that the essential ingredients to be proved against the Juvenile stated as “beyond reasonable do ubt” on a char ge of Aggravated 20 Defilement are: - (1). The stated victim is below the ag e of fourteen (14) years. (2). The Juvenile is confirmed to be HIV positive. (3). The Juvenile committed a sexual act on or with the stated victim. (4). The Juvenile is identified as having participated in the commission of the sexual act on or with the stated victim. [22]. It is the Defence case that the Prosecution did not prove all these ingredients to 25 the required standard in the discharge of their burden of proof. Thus, the Court cannot not establish a finding of prima facie case against the Juvenile. Page | 6 The Prosecution’s Submissions in Response to the No Case to Answer. [23]. The Prosecution outlined the definition and requirements to establish a prima facie case in an Aggravated Defilement Trial under Section 74(1) of the Trial on Indictments Act, Cap. 25, acknowledging that it is only if a prima facie case is made out against the Juvenile that he should be put to his or her defence and 5 conversely when a prima facie case is not made out he is entitled to be acquitted. In presenting the foregoing submissions, t he Prosecution relied on inter alia Uganda Vs. Alfred Ateu [1974 ] HCB 179 highlighting the aforementioned considerations in establishing a No Case to Answer. [24]. As regards the sufficiency of the testimony and evidence of the Prosecution’s 10 witnesses in establishing the essential ingredients of the offence of Aggravated Defilement in respect of the Juvenile, the Prosecution reiterated the ingredients already outlined herein above. [25]. It is the Prosecution’s case that it’s three (3) witnesses already cited prima facie established all of the ingredients of Aggravated Defilement against the Juvenile 15 in respect of AP. [26]. In sum, the Prosecution contended that it had established a prima facie case against the Juvenile. Representation. 20 [27]. Counsel, Mr. Ssozi Yusuf, Resident - State Attorney, represent ed the Prosecution. [28]. Counsel, Ms. Awili Sharon , represented the Juvenile. The Juvenile was present in Court throughout the Trial proceedings. [29]. The Cour t Clerk and Interpreter in the Acholi language during the entire 25 proceedings was Mr. Ongom Samuel Grey. Page | 7 Considerations and Determination of the Court. [30]. This Court has considered and evaluated the testimony and evidence presented by the Prosecution through its witnesses PW1, PW2 and PW3 in respect of the charge of Aggravated Defilement contrary to Section 116 (3) (4) (a) (b) of the Penal Code Act, Cap. 128 (Revised) against R.O.D. in relation to AP. 5 [31]. The Court has given due regard to the essential ingredients and core elements of the offence of Aggravated Defilement , the principles applicable in the circumstances of the case , the burden and standard of proof as well as the threshold. [32]. The Court takes cognisance of the numerous Authorities cited and has duly 10 considered other Authorities relevant in the circumstances of this case. Moreso, in respect of the standard of proof in establishing a prima facie case especially highlighting that - the Prosecution at this stage is not required to have proved the elements or ingredients beyond reasonable doubt since such a determination can only be made after hearing both the Prosecution and the Defence. 15 See: Wabiro Ali Musa Vs. Republic [1960] EA 184. [33]. Upon the Prosecution closing its case as has happened here , Section 74(1) of the Trial on Indictments Act, Cap. 25 requires that this Court determines whether or not the evidence adduced has established a prima facie case against a person Accused (the Juvenile) and only if a prima facie case is made out against a 20 person Accused (the Juvenile) is he put to his defence, otherwise he is to be forthwith acquitted. [34]. It is incumbent on the Court and the Court must necessarily itself independently consider and duly evaluate the essential ingredients and core elements of the offence a person (the Juvenile) is charged with here being Aggravated Defilement 25 vis-à-vis the testimony and evidence p resented by the Prosecution . This notwithstanding any concessions made by either party. Page | 8 [35]. In so doing and cognisant that the burden of proof lies on the Prosecution and does not shift with the person(s) Juvenile presumed innocent until found or otherwise pleads guilty. As well as considering that when an Accused person (as has the Juvenile) pleads not guilty he puts all the essential ingredients and core elements of the offence in contention. 5 [36]. The Court, again, reiterates the essential ingredients and core elements of the offence of Aggravated Defilement that here include – (1). The stated victim is below the age of fourteen (14) years. (2). The Juvenile is confirmed to be HIV positive. (3). The Juvenile committed a sexual act on or with the stated victim. (4). The Juvenile is identified as having participated (the assailant) in the 10 commission of the sexual act on or with the stated victim. [37]. In regard to the first core element of Aggravated Defilement , the Court is satisfied that the core element of AP being below the age of fourteen (14) years is established principally by her Mother PW1 and PW2 the Clinical Officer whom examined her on PF3A – PEX1. 15 [38]. In regard to the second core element of Aggravated Defilement, the Court is not satisfied that the core element of the Juvenile being HIV positive is established by medical evidence. PW2 testified as to “knowing” that the Juvenile was afflicted with HIV/AIDS . In PF24A – PEX2 he stated – “A known child living with HIV/AIDS”. He references file No. K/1086 that the Prosecution did not 20 present to the Court. Such representations cannot simply be presumed by or otherwise imputed to the Court. It was remiss of PW2 to draw a blood sample from the Juvenile and simply neglect to test the sample – let alone present the tested sample to the Court as cogent evidence. This exacerbates stigma. [39]. In regard to the third core element of Aggravated Defilement, the Court is not 25 satisfied that the Juvenile committed a sexual act on or with the victim. Here, the allegations are so remote the Court already observed that they are third hand. Page | 9 [40]. Firstly, the Prosecution conceded that AP could not testify even prior to the Court conducting a Voire Dire. Secondly, the Prosecution did not present the testimony of Oscar PW1’s son and AP’s brother from whom the information is said to have originated. Thirdly, PW3 did not even bother to interview Oscar. Fourthly, DW2 the Clinical Officer in his Report PF3A – PEX 1 did not observe 5 any indication of sexual abuse. The testimony and evidence presented was woefully inadequate to sustain the ingredient – let alone Prosecution’s case. [41]. In regard to the fourth core element of Aggravated Defilement, the Court finds as follows. [42]. Firstly, the Prosecution did not present witness testimony or other evidence to 10 place the Juvenile at the scene of the alleged incident said to be under a shea nut tree. In any case, in contradiction, PW1 stated the distance as 10 meters from her home while PW3 stated the distance as 70 meters from PW1’s home. There is no correlation. Secondly, the testimony of PW1, the only witness presented whom could have testified as to events on the 1st September 2025, was woefully inadequate 15 to implicate the Juvenile. Thirdly, there was a complete absence of implicating circumstantial evidence. [43]. Thus, the Prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case against the Juvenile by failing to establish participation. In any case, the Prosecution did not establish the occurrence of a sexual act. 20 [44]. This Court therefore finds that the Prosecution has not established a prima facie case against the Juvenile and the Juvenile does not have a Case to Answer that would put him to his Defence. [45]. Inevitably, the Court forthwith acquits the Juvenile – R.O.D. [46]. It is so ordered. 25 Page | 10 Orders of the Court. [47]. Accordingly, the Court makes the following Orders: - 1. The Prosecution has not established all the ingredients of Aggravated Defilement against the Juvenile and has therefore not established a prima facie case against the Juvenile R.O.D. 5 2. The Court forthwith acquits the Juvenile R.O.D. Signed and Dated on the 19th day of August 2026. (High Court, Kitgum Circuit). Philip W. Mwaka. Resident Judge, High Court Kitgum Circuit. 10 Delivery and Attendance. This signed and dated Ruling has been delivered in Open Court this 19th day of August, 2026 and the parties present are recorded hereunder. Certified copies shall be availed. 1. Prosecution - Mr. Ssozi Yusuf, Resident – State Attorney. 2. Defence - Ms. Awili Sharon. 15 3. The Juvenile - R.O.D. 4. Probation & Social Welfare Officer - Lakot Christine 5. Court Clerk/Interpreter - Mr. Ongom Samuel Grey. 6. Assessors - Mr. Lamunu Esther, Mr. Sema David and Mr. 20 Okumu Geoffrey Akera. Philip W. Mwaka. Resident Judge, High Court Kitgum Circuit - 19th day of August 2026.