WORKSHOP 1

Comments by PA FOR WORKSHOP 1-

 The state Attorney’s role is to direct investigation. (you can’t

charge a suspect in a trial without evidence)
 Raise issues that are all encompassing. (there must be a point of
contention)
 Deal with the burden and standard of proof then go to the
offense elements. Deal with the nature of evidence e.g. eye
witness evidence (what does the law say about eyewitness
evidence). Cite evidence, the law then relate to the facts.
 A search certificate is different from the search warrant. Exhibit
slip to identify what has been recovered. Then tranmistted to
person receiving at the exhibit store. (Chain of custody of
exhibit).
 Diversion. The diversion must be taken as a priority. In matters
of children, diverion is a mainstream option.
 The letter to the DPP should be as brief as possible. Don’t give up
too much details.
 Additional areas for investigation, e.g. CCTV cameras, investigate
also things that exornorates the accused as the DPP.

OFFENSES.
BURDEN OF PROOF & STANDARD OF PROOF.

With reference, direct from the case of Uganda v Hussein Hassan Agade
& 13 Ors ICD No. 0001 of 2010.

In criminal law, the burden of proof rests squarely on the prosecution to

establish the guilt of the accused. This burden never shifts to the accused
unless expressly provided by law (see Woolmington v. DPP [1935] A.C. 462
and Okethi Okale & Ors v. Republic [1965] E.A. 555). In the present case,
there is no such statutory exception shifting the burden to the accused.

The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt—a

standard that does not demand absolute certainty but requires a high
degree of probability that the accused committed the offense (Miller v.
Minister of Pensions [1947] 2 All E.R. 372). This means that while
hypothetical or fanciful doubts do not matter, any real, reasonable doubt
must result in acquittal.

Courts have consistently upheld this principle. In Andrea Obonyo & Ors v. R.
[1962] E.A. 542, it was stated that while the standard in criminal cases is
higher than in civil cases, crimes that are more serious require clearer
proof. Similarly, in Hornal v. Neuberger Products Ltd. [1956] 3 All E.R. 970,
the court emphasized that the more serious the charge, the higher the
standard of proof needed.

Furthermore, the prosecution’s case must be examined in totality, weighing

it against the defense evidence (Abdu Ngobi v. Uganda S.C. Cr. Appeal No.
10 of 1991). It is a fundamental error to evaluate the prosecution case in
isolation and then expect the defense to disprove it (Ndege Maragwa v.
Republic [1965] E.A.C.A. Criminal Appeal No. 156 of 1964). The defense
does not need to prove innocence but only needs to create a
reasonable doubt.

Circumstantial Evidence

While direct evidence (based on what witnesses saw, heard, or perceived) is

often preferred, circumstantial evidence can be equally strong. However, for
it to be conclusive, it must irresistibly point to the accused’s guilt, with
no other plausible explanation (Byamungu s/o Rusiliba v. Rex [1951] 18
E.A.C.A. 233). Courts must consider all the evidence holistically and avoid
isolating pieces of evidence (R v. Sharmpal Singh s/o Pritam Singh [1962]
E.A. 13).

In simple terms, this means that when the evidence against someone is
circumstantial (not direct, like an eyewitness seeing them commit the
crime), the facts must be so strong that:
 1. There is no reasonable way the accused could be innocent –
The facts should not leave room for any explanation other than that
they committed the crime.
2. There is no other logical explanation – The only way to make
sense of all the evidence is to conclude that the accused is guilty.

For example, if someone is found with a stolen phone shortly after it was
stolen, and they can’t explain how they got it, the only logical conclusion
is that they either stole it or knowingly received stolen property.

In short, if there is any reasonable alternative explanation, the

accused should not be convicted. But if all the facts point only to guilt,
then the person is likely guilty.

Fair Trial and Unrelated Events

Justice must be impartial, uninfluenced by external factors. The heinous

murder of Joan Kagezi, though tragic, must not influence the trial of the
accused persons in Uganda v. Hussein Hassan Agade & 12 Ors ICD No. 0001
of 2010. Even if later evidence implicates any of the accused in that murder,
it must be tried separately to avoid any perception of unfairness.

Conclusion

The presumption of innocence is fundamental. The prosecution must

prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, considering all evidence together,
and the defense is not required to prove innocence. Courts must ensure that
trials remain fair, uninfluenced by extraneous factors.

THEFT.

Section 237 of the Penal Code Act, Cap. 128, provides that, a person
commit theft if they fraudulently and without claim of right: Take anything
capable of being stolen; or fraudulently convert anything capable of being
stolen to the use of any person other than the general or special owner.
The General punishment for theft as provided under section 244 of the
Penal Code Act, Cap. 128 is imprisonment not exceeding 10 (ten) years.
INGREDIENTS.
 Dishonest or Fraudulent taking or conversion.
 The thing must be capable of being stolen.
 Absence of a claim of right.
 Intention to permanently deprive the owner.
 Actual taking or movement.
  No legal justification.
With exception for lost property: If someone finds lost property and
converts it to their use without knowing or being able to find the
owner, it is not theft (subsection 5).
Justice Stephen Mubiru outlined the key ingredients of theft in Uganda v
Opio No. 0112 of 2014 as follows:
1. Taking property belonging to another – This means the accused
must have taken something that was not theirs. The property must be
capable of being stolen, and there must be actual movement of
the item, even if slight.
2. Unlawful handling without a claim of right, with the intent to
permanently deprive the owner – This highlights that the accused
must have taken or dealt with the property fraudulently and without
legal justification. It also requires proof of an intention to
permanently deprive the rightful owner of their possession.
3. Participation of the accused in the commission of the crime –
The prosecution must establish that the accused was directly
involved in committing the theft. This ensures that mere suspicion is
not enough; there must be clear evidence linking the accused to
the unlawful act.
Taken as a whole, the circumstantial evidence irresistibly points to
Bugembe’s guilt, satisfying the standard set in Kizito David alias
Magye Magye v Uganda, which requires circumstantial evidence to
exclude any other reasonable explanation. Similarly, Uganda v
Hussein highlights that the prosecution must prove guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt, a standard met through the security guard’s
testimony, phone tracking, financial transactions, and possession of
stolen property. Therefore, the evidence conclusively supports a
conviction for theft.

RECEIVING STOLEN PROPERTY.

Section 294 of the Penal Code Act, 128, provides that, recently stolen
property refer to chattel, money, valuable security, or other property that
has been feloniously stolen, taken, extorted, obtained, or disposed of
through criminal means. Found in possession of an accused person soon
after the theft or unlawful taking, creating a presumption of guilt unless
satisfactorily explained.
INGREDIENTS.
 The property was stolen or unlawfully obtained.
 The property was found in the possession of the accused.
 The property was recently stolen.
 The accused had knowledge or reason to believe the property was
stolen.
 No reasonable explanation from the accused.
In Kantillal Jivarai and another V.R (1961) E.A. 6. The Court of Appeal
for East Africa at Page 7 said; the doctrine of recent possession is a legal
principle used in criminal cases where stolen property is found with the
accused soon after the theft. If the accused fails to give a reasonable
explanation for possessing the stolen item, the law assumes they are either
the thief or the receiver of stolen goods. The actual circumstances of the
case determine which one applies.
In DPP v Neiser (1958), the court explained that recent possession is a
form of circumstantial evidence. If someone is found with recently
stolen goods and cannot explain how they got them, the court can infer
guilt. However, the type of stolen item and the accused’s occupation
matter. For example, a shopkeeper dealing in secondhand goods may
be more likely to be a receiver rather than a thief.
In Erieza Kasaija v Uganda, the court applied this doctrine when the
accused was found with a stolen bicycle. Even though his identification
as a robber was uncertain, the fact that he had the stolen bicycle soon
after the robbery was enough for the court to convict him. The court ruled
that if someone is caught with stolen property and does not provide
a reasonable explanation, the law presumes they either stole it or
received it knowing it was stolen.
Similarly, in R v Bukai s/o Abdallah (1949), the court ruled that recent
possession could be used to support charges beyond just theft, including
burglary and even murder, if the evidence strongly points in that
direction.
In cases relying purely on circumstantial evidence, such as Simon
Musoke v R (1958), the court emphasized that the facts must be so
strong that they rule out any other reasonable explanation besides
the accused’s guilt.

CRIMINAL TRESSPASS.
Section 282 of the Penal Code Act, Cap. 128 provides that, Criminal
trespass occurs when a person enters or remains on property in
possession of another person with the intent to: Commit an offence, or
intimidate, insult, or annoy the person in possession of the property.
This offense is classified as a misdemeanor, and upon conviction, the
accused is liable to imprisonment for up to one year.
INGREDIENTS.
 Entry into or Upon Property in the Possession of Another.
 Unlawful Presence or Remaining on the Property.
 Intent to Commit an Offence, Intimidate, Insult, or Annoy.
Types of Criminal Trespass;
Type 1: Trespass by Entry (Section 282(a))
A person enters property without permission with intent to commit a crime or
disturb the owner.
Example: Someone breaks into a school at night intending to steal
computers.

Type 2: Trespass by Remaining (Section 282(b))

A person lawfully enters but refuses to leave when asked, intending to
intimidate, insult, or commit an offence.
Example: A former employee enters a workplace lawfully but stays to harass
the new owner.
In the case of Opio Enrico v Uganda Criminal Appeal No. 0010 of 2014,
Justice Mubiru was of the view that criminal trespass requires actual physical
entry—sending workers to a disputed property is not enough. A claim of right
is a strong defense—if someone honestly believes they own the land, they
cannot be guilty of trespass. Intent to intimidate, insult, or annoy must be
directed at an actual person—an organization like a school cannot be
intimidated or insulted in the legal sense.
Criminal trespass is not just about entering land illegally—the entry must be
intentional, unlawful, and directed at a person with the aim of committing an
offense or causing annoyance. If a person truly believes they have a right to
the land, they cannot be convicted of trespass.
Additional Information Needed for a Conviction as a Resident State
Attorney.
For the Theft;
 CCTV footage or video surveillance from High Tower School or
nearby areas to show Bugembe’s presence at the school on May
24, 2024, and his pickup truck carrying the stolen printer.
 Vehicle tracking records to confirm Bugembe’s pickup truck
movements on the night of the theft.
 Phone call records between Bugembe and Kabalata, especially on
the day of the theft and sale. The investigating officer noted that
Kabalata was called on phone (0799297006) about the printer
—you need a detailed call log analysis.
 Records of past ownership of the printer, such as purchase
receipts, inventory records, or school financial documents,
proving that it belonged to High Tower School and not Bugembe.
 Statements from more school staff or students who may have
seen Bugembe and his pickup truck on the night of the theft.
For the Receiving of Stolen property;
 CCTV footage or witness statements from Kabalata’s factory
confirming that he received and attempted to install the printer.
 Bank or mobile money transaction records to verify how the UGX
8,000,000 was paid for the printer and whether there was a transfer
to Bugembe.
 A forensic examination of the printer to confirm that it matches
the missing Lexmark X854e MFP from High Tower School, and
checking for any serial numbers, engravings, or school initials.
 Further interrogation of Kabalata to get a description of the
seller—who else was involved? Was there a middleman?
 Expert valuation report showing that the printer is actually worth
UGX 98,000,000, making it unreasonable for Kabalata to claim he
bought it legitimately for UGX 8,000,000.
For the Criminal Trespass;
 A formal notice or written agreement between Prima and
Bugembe stating the agreed handover deadline. If his time had
expired, his presence at the school was unauthorized.
 Security guard duty logs or occurrence book entries showing
who entered and left the school on May 24, 2024.
  Statements from other security guards, students, or teachers
who may confirm that Bugembe frequently entered the school
without permission.
Establishing the doctrine of recent possession;
 Timeline evidence to prove that the printer was stolen on May
24, 2024, and later found in Kabalata’s possession within a
short period. This strengthens the doctrine of recent possession.
 Proof that Bugembe still had UGX 5,000,000 from the sale—was
it found in his possession?
 Additional witness statements to confirm that Bugembe was the
only person with access to the school and the printer on the
night it disappeared.
Procedure should police follow to recover and preserve the exhibits.
Recovery of Exhibits
Legal Basis:
 Section 30 of the Police Act (Cap 324) – Grants police powers to seize any property that
may be used as evidence in a criminal case.
 Practice Direction 5 of the Management of Exhibits Practice Directions, 2022 –
Requires all exhibits to be recorded in an Exhibit Register with details such as date, time,
location, and description of the exhibit.
Steps in Exhibit Recovery:
1. Crime Scene Management:
o The scene of crime officer (SOCO) secures the crime scene.
o If necessary, photographs and video recordings are taken before the removal of
exhibits.
2. Recording in the Exhibit Register (Practice Direction 5):
o Each exhibit must be recorded in the Exhibit Register Book.
o The following details must be entered:
 Nature of the exhibit.
 Condition upon recovery.
 Date, time, and location of seizure.
 Identity of the officer who recovered the exhibit.
 Witnesses to the recovery.
 3. Marking of Exhibits (Practice Direction 6):
o Each exhibit must be uniquely marked to ensure it is identifiable throughout the
case.
o The mark must remain consistent in all documentation, movement records, and
court proceedings.

2. Chain of Custody
Legal Basis:
 Practice Direction 7 of the Management of Exhibits Practice Directions, 2022 –
Establishes procedures for maintaining an unbroken chain of custody.
Steps in Maintaining Chain of Custody:
1. Recording Movement in the Chain of Custody Log:
o Every transfer or handling of the exhibit must be logged.
o The following details must be recorded:
 Date and time of movement.
 The officer handing over and receiving the exhibit.
 Purpose of movement (e.g., forensic analysis, court presentation).
2. Ensuring Exhibit Integrity:
o Exhibits must remain in sealed, tamper-proof packaging.
o If an exhibit is transferred for forensic examination, a receipt of movement must
be signed by the recipient.

3. Packaging and Storage

Legal Basis:
 Practice Direction 8 of the Management of Exhibits Practice Directions, 2022 –
Establishes rules for the storage of exhibits in police custody.
 Practice Direction 10 – Provides for the handling of money exhibits.
Steps for Secure Storage:
1. Storage in a Designated Facility:
 o All exhibits must be stored in locked, secure rooms at the police station or an
authorized evidence facility.
o If an exhibit is too large or hazardous, the police must notify the Magistrate for
special handling.
2. Management of Money as an Exhibit (Practice Direction 10):
o If money is seized, the serial numbers must be recorded.
o The money must be placed in a sealed envelope with the case file details.
o The envelope must be stored in a designated police treasury or bank deposit.

4. Storage of Exhibits at Court

Legal Basis:
 Practice Direction 9 – Governs the storage of exhibits in court after they have been
transferred from police custody.
Steps in Exhibit Storage at Court:
1. Official Handover to Court Authorities:
o The exhibit is formally handed over from police to the court registrar.
o The court issues an Exhibit Receipt acknowledging receipt of the exhibit.
2. Storage in the Court Exhibit Room:
o The exhibit is stored in a separate, locked room within the court premises.
o If necessary, the court may order further forensic examination before trial.

5. Presentation in Court
Legal Basis:
 Section 200 of the Magistrates Court Act (Cap 19) – Governs the presentation of
exhibits as evidence.
 Practice Direction 9 – Requires that exhibits be produced in court in their original
form unless impossible.
Steps for Court Presentation:
1. Witness Testimony on Exhibit Recovery:
 o The officer who seized the exhibit must testify about its recovery and chain of
custody.
o If applicable, expert forensic analysts may be called to verify findings.
2. Alternative Methods of Presentation (Practice Direction 8):
o If an exhibit cannot be physically produced in court, the following alternatives
may be accepted:
 Certified photographs or video evidence.
 Forensic reports.

6. Disposal of Exhibits After Trial

Legal Basis:
 Practice Direction 27 – Provides guidelines for the disposal of exhibits after trial.

What procedure would police follow to resolve the issue out of

court?
 Article 257(c) of the 1995 Constitution defines a child as a person
under the age of 18 years.
 Section 2 of the Children’s Act Cap 62 reiterates that a child is
any person below 18 years.
 Section 133 of the Children’s Act Cap 62 provides that the
minimum age of criminal responsibility is 12 years.
 In Uganda v O.F (A Juvenile) UGHCCRD 173, Justice Mubiru stated
that children aged 12 to 17 years can be held criminally
responsible.
Thus, since the accused is 17 years old, they are criminally responsible but
still entitled to special protection under juvenile justice provisions.

1. The Offence: Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm

 Section 219 of the Penal Code Act Cap 128 states that assault
causing actual bodily harm is a misdemeanor punishable by up
to 5 years imprisonment.
  In Uganda V Eboru S/O EMEU (1979) HCB 196, the elements of
assault causing actual bodily harm were established as:
1. Application of force
2. Hitting or torturing another person
3. Intentionally or recklessly committing the act
4. Without consent or lawful justification
5. The act causing actual bodily harm
Given that assault is a non-capital offence, the matter qualifies for
diversion under Uganda’s juvenile justice system.

2. The Concept of Diversion in Juvenile Justice

 Diversion is a key principle in handling child offenders, allowing
them to be rehabilitated rather than criminalized.
 Guideline 1(d) of the Children Diversion Guidelines, 2019
defines diversion as the process of channeling a juvenile offender
away from the formal justice system to an informal justice
process that seeks restorative justice.
 Section 3(2) of the Children’s Act Cap 62 emphasizes that in cases
involving children, disputes should be resolved immediately and
without delay, as unnecessary delays negatively impact a child’s
welfare.
 Section 134(2) of the Children’s Act Cap 62 empowers the police
to dispose of juvenile cases at their discretion without requiring a
formal court hearing, in accordance with guidelines set by the
Inspector General of Police.
Thus, diversion applies to this case because the accused is a child,
the offence is not capital, and the law encourages resolution outside
the court system.

3. Criteria for Diversion

According to Guideline 2 of the Children Diversion Guidelines, 2019,
diversion applies only to non-capital offences such as common assault.
Criminal trespass. Theft. Malicious damage.
Since assault occasioning actual bodily harm is a misdemeanor, it falls
within the scope of diversion.
However, the following conditions must be met for diversion to
proceed:
 The child must accept responsibility for the offence.
 The child must voluntarily opt into the diversion process.
 If the child has a disability, the matter should be resolved
immediately to prevent further harm.

4. Diversionary Measures Available

According to the Children Diversion Guidelines, 2019, the following
measures can be applied in this case:
1. Release of the child with a caution.
2. Reconciliation between the child and the complainant.
3. Settlement through family or community dialogue.
4. An apology by the child to the victim.
5. Restitution (e.g., payment of medical expenses for the victim).
6. Referral to a community-based diversion program.

5. The Diversion Procedure

The Police Diversion Guidelines, 2019, outline a specific procedure
that must be followed:
Step 1: Receipt of Complaint and Investigation
 The police receive a complaint and investigate the circumstances
of the offence.
 The police ascertain the child’s age through birth certificates, school
records, or witness statements.
 The police confirm that the offence qualifies for diversion under the
guidelines.
Step 2: Reviewing the Evidence
 The police assess whether there is sufficient evidence to proceed
with a charge.
  The child’s parents or guardians are notified about the complaint.
Step 3: Engaging the Complainant and Community Leaders
 The police inform local leaders, probation officers, or community
mediators.
 The complainant and the accused’s family meet to discuss a possible
resolution.
Step 4: Selecting an Appropriate Diversion Measure
 The police guide the complainant, child, and guardians in choosing
the most appropriate diversion measure (e.g., apology,
reconciliation, or restitution).
 A formal settlement agreement is signed by the parties in the
presence of witnesses.
Step 5: Forwarding Diversion Records
 Once a settlement is reached, the police document the case
outcome in the Diversion Record Form.
 The case is reported to the probation officer, Local Council (LC)
courts, or other agencies responsible for juvenile offenders.
Step 6: Follow-up and Counseling
 The police educate the child on avoiding future conflicts.
 The child is referred to rehabilitation or mentorship programs if
necessary.

6. Conclusion
 Since the accused is a 17-year-old minor, formal court proceedings
should be avoided in favor of diversion under the Children’s Act
Cap 62 and Children Diversion Guidelines, 2019.
 The police have the discretion to handle the case outside the
formal justice system, provided the accused accepts
responsibility and the complainant agrees to an alternative
resolution.
 Diversion measures such as reconciliation, cautioning, restitution,
and community-based programs would ensure that justice is
served without unnecessarily exposing the child to the criminal
justice system.
  The process aligns with Uganda’s constitutional and legal
principles, which emphasize the protection and rehabilitation of
child offenders rather than punishment.

What is the forum, procedure and documents to seek recourse for the client?
DOCUMENTS.
1. Consent form.

CONSENT FORM.
I....................................... accept responsibility for assault occasioning actual
bodily harm and hereby acknowledge the harm committed against security
guard at higher tower school
The benefits and opportunities of having my offence diverted from the formal
justice system have been fully explained to me by police officer and I hereby
agree to abide by the instructions and guidance I will receive from
the ............................ to complete the diversionary measure to the best of
my ability.
........................................
Signed by child:
Consented to by:
i. ............................... primary care giver
ii. ............................... Complainant.
In presence of.................................................... (Name of office, probation
officer, fit person)
This consent from has been translated into ................... language for benefit
of the parties by ............... this .......... day of............
Signed by
...................................................
02ND February 2025
TO:
THE RESIDENT STATE ATTORNEY,
KIRA OFFICE,
WAKISO DISTRICT.

Dear sir/madam,
RE: ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT REGARDING THE PROSECUTION OF
BUGEMBE UMARU vide CRIM SD REF 012/05/09/23 UGANDA VS
BUGEMBE UMARU
We act for our client Bugembe Umaru, hereinafter referred to as our client,
on whose instructions we lodge complaint as hereunder;
a) On the 20th day of January 2025, our client was arrested in Busia and
later transferred to Kira Divisional Police Station and charged with one
count of the offence of theft of a school printer c/s 237 of the Penal
Code Act cap 128, Laws of Uganda, belonging to High Tower School
owned by a one Nekchan Prima.
b) That this case is one of a mistaken identity. It was dark on that that
night when the alleged offence of theft happened giving no witness a
conducive environment to carefully observe the participation of our
client in the said act (s) leading to the offence of theft.
c) We further inform you that on that fateful day and time when the
alleged theft of the printer took place, our client was away in Zambia
 attending a farmer’s conference. (Attached in annexure (A) are
copies of our client’s flight tickets, invitation letters, hotel
tickets and photos taken during his stay in Zambia)
d) The efforts of my client to support the investigations officers with vital
information in (c) above all fell on deaf ears. The officers have instead
termed our client as one who wants to escape justice.
WHEREFORE we seek your indulgence on this matter to avoid a miscarriage
of justice against our client. What is happening with this case file is a unique
procedure of handling applicants being exhibited by the investigation’s
officers and indicative of bias.

Yours Sincerely

……………………………………………………..
Firm A6 & Co Advocates.

WORKSHOP TWO.
BRIEF FACTS.
A land dispute in Luwafu, Makindye, ensued where Rwentoo Flowers, her
siblings, and their mother, Kesubi Trinity, claim that the late Rwegira Protazio
left the land for family use without the right to sell. On 01/01/2024, Rukoni
Obadia alias “Badass” claimed sole ownership without proof and later stated
he had sold the land to Kabila Apollo. On 09/10/2024, a group allegedly sent
by Rukoni attempted to forcibly evict Flowers, with one assailant, Assad
Mayengo, throwing a spear at her. Police investigations confirmed that
Rukoni’s land ownership document was forged, and he was later arrested
after hiding for days. Evidence, including weapons and a forged document,
was recovered, and statements were recorded from all parties.
ISSUES.
1. What are the possible offences disclosed by the
facts?
 2. What evidence exists to support the identified
offences?
3. Whether there are any areas requiring further
investigation?
4. What court documents are necessary to initiate
criminal proceedings?
5. What pre-trial remedies are available to the suspect?
6. What court documents are required for a bail
application?
7. How should an extra-judicial statement be recorded
by the Magistrate?
RESOLUTION.
i. What are the possible offences disclosed by the facts?
Forgery.
Section 319 of the Penal Code Act, Cap. 128 provides that forgery is the
making of a false document with intent to defraud or to deceive. Section
324 of the penal code act provides that the punishment for forgery is
imprisonment for (three) 3 years unless there is a different punishment
specified because of the type of forgery or the document involved.
In the case of Uganda v. Geoffrey Kazinda (HCT-00-SC-0138-2012),
Forgery involves making, altering, or dealing with a document in a
way that misrepresents its authenticity or falsely claims to be made by
someone who did not authorize it and the prosecution must prove;
 The document is false or forged.
 It was made with intent to defraud or deceive.
 It was created or altered by the accused.
Threatening Violence.

Threatening violence is a criminal offence that occurs when a person

intentionally threatens to cause harm to another person or their
property, with the aim of intimidating, annoying, or alarming them.
The threat can be made verbally, in writing, or through actions, and it
does not require actual physical harm to take place for the offence to be
committed.

To secure a conviction for Threatening Violence under Section 77 of the

Penal Code Act, the prosecution must prove the following elements:

1. Existence of a Threat
o The accused must have made a threat to:
  Injure, assault, shoot, or kill a person (Section 77(a))
 Burn, break, or destroy any property (Section 77(a))
 Discharge a firearm or commit any act that breaches
the peace (Section 77(b))
2. Intent to Intimidate, Annoy, or Alarm
o The accused must have made the threat with a specific
intention to:
 Intimidate or annoy the victim (Section 77(a))
 Cause fear or alarm to the victim (Section 77(b))
3. Communication of the Threat
o The threat must have been communicated to the victim,
either directly or indirectly.
o It does not matter whether the accused actually carried out the
threat—the mere act of making the threat is sufficient to
constitute the offence.
4. Threat Must Be Unlawful
o The threat must be unjustified or unlawful (e.g., threats made
in self-defense may not qualify).

Punishment for Threatening Violence

According to Section 77 of the Penal Code Act, the punishment for

Threatening Violence is imprisonment for a term not exceeding four
(4) years, upon conviction.

This position is supported by the case of Alupo Stella v Uganda H.C.CRIM.

Appeal No.2 of 2012 where court provided the ingredients for Threatening
Violence as; Intent to Intimidate, Annoy, or Alarm and Participation by
the Accused.

Criminal Trespass.

Criminal trespass is an offense committed when a person unlawfully enters

or remains on property in the possession of another person with the
intent to commit a crime, intimidate, insult, or annoy the lawful
occupant. The offense is categorized as a misdemeanor under Section
282 of the Penal Code Act and is punishable by imprisonment for up to
one year upon conviction.

To secure a conviction for criminal trespass, the prosecution must prove

the following elements:

1. Entry onto Property

 The accused must have entered into or upon property that
o
is in the possession of another person.
o This entry can be physical (walking into the premises) or
constructive (sending someone to trespass on their
behalf).
2. Intent to Commit an Offense, Intimidate, Insult, or Annoy
o The accused must have entered the property with an unlawful
purpose, which may include:
 Committing an offense (e.g., theft, destruction of
property, or assault).
 Intimidating the occupant (e.g., making threats or
forcefully evicting them).
 Insulting or annoying the occupant (e.g., provoking or
harassing them).
o Alternatively, if the accused initially entered lawfully but
later remained on the property with the intent to
intimidate, insult, annoy, or commit a crime, it still
constitutes criminal trespass.
3. Property Must Belong to Another Person
o The property in question must be lawfully occupied or
possessed by another person.
4. Unlawful Presence
o The accused’s presence on the property must be unlawful
due to their intent.

Under Section 282 of the Penal Code Act, a person convicted of criminal
trespass is liable to imprisonment for up to one (1) year.

The severity of the punishment may depend on aggravating factors, such as

whether the trespass was accompanied by violence or other criminal acts.

In Uganda vs. Kinyera Walter, Okot Bosco, Oyoo Franco and Ocaya
Jackson (High Court Criminal Session Case No. 0374 of 2018), Justice
Mubiru held that criminal trespass is committed when there is:

a. Intentional entry onto property in the possession of another

b. The entry was unlawful or without authorization.
c. The entry was for an unlawful purpose.
d. The accused entered the land.

ii. What evidence exists to support identified offenses?

FORGERY.
Relevant Evidence from Police Files:

 In Makindye CRB 220/2024, Rukoni produced a document

claiming that their late father gave him ownership of the
disputed land.
 The Investigating Officer's statement (Nansana CRB 150/2024)
confirms that forensic examination revealed significant
variations in the handwriting of the deceased, suggesting the
document was forged.
 The family members, including the complainant (Rwentoo
Flowers) and their mother (Kesubi Trinity), denied the
existence of any such document before Rukoni’s claim.
 The real land documents are reportedly with their uncle, Bazilio,
which raises questions about the authenticity of Rukoni’s documents.

Application of Kazinda:

In Kazinda, the forensic handwriting expert confirmed that the

accused forged financial documents by falsely signing the
Permanent Secretary’s name.

 Similarly, in Makindye CRB 220/2024 & Nansana CRB 150/2024,

police forensic experts determined that the signature on
Rukoni’s land documents was not that of the deceased, but
closely resembled Rukoni’s own handwriting.
 In Kazinda, the court ruled that forgery does not require actual use
of the document—simply creating a false document with intent
to defraud is enough for conviction.
 Here, Rukoni attempted to use the forged document to evict his
siblings, fulfilling the intent to defraud element.

Legal Implication:

 Rukoni could be charged under Section 342 of the Penal Code

Act for forgery, as he presented a false document to claim
ownership of land.
 The forensic report is strong evidence, just as it was in Kazinda,
and will be key in proving the forgery charge in court.

2. Possession of Forged Documents as Evidence of Guilt (Makindye

CRB 220/2024 & Nansana CRB 150/2024)

Relevant Evidence from Police Files:

  In Nansana CRB 150/2024, after police arrested Rukoni, he
produced the disputed land documents only when confronted,
claiming his father gave them to him.
 The Investigating Officer’s statement (D/AIP No. 342223
D/W/Sgt Kamuli Sonia) confirms that forensic examination
discredited the authenticity of the document.
 Witness statements from Kesubi Trinity (their mother) and
Rwentoo Flowers confirm that no such document existed when
the father was alive.

Application of Kazinda:

In Kazinda, the accused kept forged documents hidden in his mother’s

house instead of official custody, which raised suspicion and linked him
directly to the crime.

 Similarly, in Makindye CRB 220/2024 & Nansana CRB 150/2024,

Rukoni kept the forged land documents in his possession and
only produced them after being arrested.
 In Kazinda, the court ruled that possession of forged documents
with intent to use them fraudulently is enough for a conviction.
 Here, Rukoni’s sudden production of the document, combined
with forensic proof of forgery, strongly implicates him.

Legal Implication:

 Under Sections 342 and 347 of the Penal Code Act, possession
of forged documents with intent to defraud is an offense.
 The investigation findings from Nansana CRB 150/2024 provide
strong circumstantial evidence, similar to the Kazinda case.
 Rukoni can be charged based on his possession and attempted
use of a forged land document.

3. Intent to Defraud or Deceive (Makindye CRB 220/2024 & Nansana

CRB 150/2024)

Relevant Evidence from Police Files:

 In Makindye CRB 220/2024, on New Year’s Day 2024, Rukoni

suddenly claimed full ownership of the land, despite his siblings
living there for years.
 In Nansana CRB 150/2024, the Investigating Officer (D/W/Sgt
Kamuli Sonia) found that Rukoni had already attempted to sell
the land to Kabila Apollo.
 The forensic report confirmed the land document was fake, meaning
he knowingly used false documents to claim the land.
Application of Kazinda:

In Kazinda, the accused forged financial documents with the intent to

defraud government funds. The court ruled that intent to deceive is
present even if the forged document is not successfully used.

 Similarly, Rukoni attempted to use his forged land documents to

take control of family land and sell it.
 His false claim and violent attempts to enforce it demonstrate
clear intent to defraud his siblings.

Legal Implication:

 Rukoni’s actions constitute intent to defraud, making the forgery

charge stronger.
 His attempt to sell the land could also support charges of
obtaining goods by false pretenses (Section 305, Penal Code
Act).

THREATENING VIOLENCE.

In Makindye CRB 220/2024, Rukoni ordered a group of men to evict

Rwentoo Flowers from her home. During this confrontation:

 Assad Mayengo (an associate of Rukoni) threw a spear at

Rwentoo Flowers, intending to cause injury.
 The men threatened to demolish the house if she did not leave
immediately.
 The intent was clearly to intimidate or force her into leaving
the property, which meets the definition of threatening violence
under Section 77(a).
 The act of throwing a spear at Flowers also constitutes a
breach of the peace, making it an offence under Section 77(b).

Possible Charge:

Based on these facts, Rukoni Obadia and Assad Mayengo can be

charged with Threatening Violence under Section 77 of the Penal
Code Act.
CRIMINAL TRESPASS.

Findings in Sekandi v Uganda

 The High Court ruled that criminal trespass is meant to protect

lawful possession, and for the offense to be proven, the prosecution
must establish that the complainant was in actual possession of the
land at the time of the alleged trespass.
 The court held that possession does not require physical
presence on the land at the time of trespass, but rather control
over it through outward acts, such as developments or caretakers.

Application to Makindye CRB 220/2024 & Nansana CRB 150/2024

 In Makindye CRB 220/2024, Rwentoo Flowers and her siblings

were in possession of the land, having built permanent houses
on it.
 Their mother, Kesubi Trinity, confirmed that the land was
meant for family use and not for sale.
 Possession was evidenced by long-term habitation, structures,
and their continuous use of the land.
 The entry by Rukoni and his associates to evict the complainant
using threats and force constitutes criminal trespass, as it was an
unlawful interference with rightful possession.

Legal Implication

 The High Court in Sekandi v Uganda upheld that interfering

with another’s possession constitutes trespass.
 Similarly, Rukoni’s actions meet the threshold for criminal
trespass, as he forcefully entered the land despite his siblings
being in possession.

2. Unlawful Entry on the Land

Findings in Sekandi v Uganda

 The court found that the accused entered land that had been
lawfully transferred to the complainant, despite claiming the
transaction was incomplete.
 The presence of fencing materials and grading of land
indicated an attempt to dispossess the complainant.

Application to Makindye CRB 220/2024 & Nansana CRB 150/2024

  Rukoni, along with armed men, entered the family land without
permission.
 He threatened to demolish Flowers’ house and physically
attacked her through his associate, Assad Mayengo, who threw
a spear at her.
 Like Sekandi, Rukoni laid an adverse claim to the land despite
lacking legal ownership, amounting to unlawful entry.

Legal Implication

 The court in Sekandi ruled that unauthorized entry onto

another’s land without a legal claim amounts to criminal
trespass.
 Rukoni’s forced entry and threats confirm his intent to commit
an offense, making him liable under Section 282 of the Penal
Code Act.

3. Intent to Intimidate or Annoy the Occupants

Findings in Sekandi v Uganda

 The accused in Sekandi brought workers and machinery to

clear land, an act that the court deemed as intending to
intimidate or assert an unlawful claim.
 The High Court ruled that laying an adverse claim to land,
knowing it is possessed by another, is sufficient to prove intent
to intimidate.

Application to Makindye CRB 220/2024 & Nansana CRB 150/2024

 Rukoni not only entered the land but also used force and
violence.
 He sent a group to evict Flowers at night, ordered her to
vacate, and authorized an attack against her.
 This clearly shows an intent to intimidate and assert illegal
possession, just like in Sekandi.

Legal Implication

 In Sekandi, the court held that forceful re-entry onto occupied land
demonstrates intent to intimidate or annoy.
 Rukoni’s armed attack and forceful eviction attempt prove
similar intent, making him liable for criminal trespass.
 iii. Whether there are any areas requiring further investigation?

Verification of Land Ownership

 Obtain and review official land documents from the uncle, Bazilio, to
confirm true ownership.
 Cross-check land registry records to establish the rightful owner.

Identification of Assailants

 Investigate the identities of the men who attacked Flowers, including

Assad Mayengo, and confirm their association with Rukoni.
 Secure additional witness statements from neighbors or local leaders.

Authentication of the Sale Agreement

 Conduct handwriting comparison on other documents signed by the

late Rwegira Protazio.
 Interview Kabila Apollo to establish the details of the sale and whether
he knew about the forged documents.

Motive and Financial Transactions

 Investigate whether any financial transaction took place between

Rukoni and Kabila to substantiate the alleged sale.

iv. What pre-trial remedies are available to the suspect?

POLICE BOND.

The Constitution of Uganda (1995) establishes the foundational principle

that a person arrested on suspicion of committing an offense must be
brought before a court within 48 hours of arrest. Specifically under
Article 23(4)(b).

This provision ensures that detention does not extend indefinitely without
judicial oversight. If the police are unable to complete their investigations
and charge the suspect within this timeframe, they must either release the
suspect on police bond or take them to court.

Thus, police bond serves as a safeguard against arbitrary and

prolonged detention. Where investigations are incomplete but charges
have not been filed, granting bond becomes the most appropriate pre-
trial remedy to avoid violating constitutional rights.

The Police Act (Cap 324) further empowers police officers to release a
suspect on bond under specific conditions under Section 24(2)(b);

This provision confirms that:

 Police bond is applicable to all non-capital offenses (offenses not

punishable by death).
 The officer in charge has discretion to release the accused after
signing a bond agreement.
 Sureties may or may not be required, depending on the
circumstances.
 Bond can only be denied if there are reasonable grounds to
believe that releasing the accused would obstruct justice (e.g.,
if the suspect is likely to abscond or interfere with witnesses).

By allowing suspects to be released while investigations continue, Section

24(2)(b) of the Police Act recognizes police bond as a crucial pre-
trial remedy that balances law enforcement needs with individual liberties.

The Criminal Procedure Code Act (Cap 122) reinforces the right to police
bond by making it mandatory for all non-capital offenses, unless there is a
compelling reason to deny it under Section 17. This provision makes police
bond a default remedy for non-capital offenses, placing an obligation
on the police to grant it unless:

 There is a risk that the accused will abscond.

 There is a likelihood that the accused will interfere with
investigations.
 The offense committed is grave and requires further police
custody for effective investigation.

If none of these exceptions apply, the accused must be granted police

bond.
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS.

According to Black’s Law Dictionary (9th Edition), habeas corpus is: "A
writ employed to bring a person before a court, most frequently to ensure
that the person's imprisonment or detention is not illegal."

Article 23(9) of the Constitution of Uganda (1995) states: "The right to

an order of habeas corpus shall be inviolable and shall not be suspended
even in a state of emergency, except as provided in this Constitution."

This provision guarantees that every person has the right to challenge their
detention in court, and this right remains in force at all times, including
during states of emergency. It reinforces the principle that no one should
be detained without lawful justification and that courts must ensure
that all detentions are legally sanctioned.

Section 38 of the Judicature Act (Cap 16) provides the legal framework
for applying habeas corpus.

This section grants the High Court the power to issue a writ of habeas
corpus whenever a person is unlawfully detained. It allows a detained
individual—or someone acting on their behalf—to petition the court to
compel the detaining authority (such as the police) to present the detainee
before a judge and justify their detention. If the detention is found to be
unlawful, the court orders the immediate release of the detainee.

The procedure for applications of habeas corpus are regulated by the

Judicature (Habeas Corpus) Rules S.I. 13-6 under Rule 3 which
stipulates, that the application should be filed and presented ex parte.

In Kyagulanyi Sentamu Robert & Another v Attorney General & 2

Others [2021] UGHC 16, The court emphasized that habeas corpus is
inviolable under Article 23(9) of the Constitution, meaning it cannot
be suspended even in emergencies.

The ruling reiterated that any person detained beyond 48 hours without
being produced before a court (as required under Article 23(4)(b) of the
Constitution) is being held unlawfully. The government must justify such
detention, failing which the detainee must be immediately released.

Once a habeas corpus application is made, the detaining authority bears

the burden of proving the legality of detention. If they fail to do so,
the court must grant release. The case highlighted concerns about the
use of detention as a tool of suppression and reaffirmed that the courts
must act swiftly to protect fundamental rights.
 v. How should an extra-judicial statement be recorded by the
Magistrate?

Article 28(3) (c) of the Constitution provides that;

 No person shall be compelled to give self-incriminating evidence.

 Statements obtained through coercion, threats, or inducements
are unconstitutional and inadmissible.

Article 44(c) of the Constitutions provides that;

 Protects individuals from torture, cruel, inhuman, or degrading

treatment.
 Any confession obtained through force or threats violates this
fundamental right and must be excluded.

Section 23 of the Evidence Act, Cap 8 provides that;

 A confession made in police custody must be made before a

Magistrate or a police officer of or above the rank of Assistant
Inspector to be admissible.
 This ensures that Magistrates record extra-judicial statements
independently.

Section 24 of the Evidence Act, Cap 8 provides that;

 A confession is inadmissible if obtained through force, threats,

inducements, or promises.
 The prosecution must prove that a confession was voluntary.

Section 25 of the Evidence Act, Cap. 8 provides that;

 If a confession was previously obtained through improper means,

but later made voluntarily after such influence has been removed, it
may still be admissible.

In Mubangizi Simon v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 233 of 2002)

[2006] UGCA 7, he Court of Appeal emphasized that where the
admissibility of a confession is challenged, the court must hold a
“trial within a trial” to determine its voluntariness. The confession must
be recorded in a language the accused understands, and the accused must
confirm its contents before signing.

This case supports the requirement that Magistrates must ensure

confessions are voluntary and recorded properly.

In Namulodi Hasadi v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 16 of 1997) [1998] UGSC

10, The Supreme Court ruled that a confession recorded in violation of
legal procedures is inadmissible. If an accused person denies the
confession or alleges coercion, the court must examine whether the
confession was recorded lawfully.

This case highlights that failure to follow proper recording procedures

renders an extra-judicial statement unreliable.

A Magistrate must follow this step-by-step process:

i. Confirm Voluntariness – Ask the accused whether they are making

the statement out of their own free will (Section 24 Evidence
Act).
ii. Inform the Accused of Their Rights – Advise them that they are
not required to speak and that the statement can be used as
evidence (Section 24 Evidence Act).
iii. Record the Statement Accurately – Write the statement in the
exact words of the accused, in a language they understand
(Section 23 Evidence Act).
iv. Read Back the Statement – Allow the accused to verify its
accuracy before signing.
v. Sign and Certify – The Magistrate must sign the statement,
confirming that it was recorded voluntarily and lawfully.

DOCUMENTS.

Workshop 1 (Complaint Letter to the DPP.)

ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT TO THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS.

FIRM A6 & CO. ADVOCATES

Plot 12 Lira, 1st Floor LDC Lira Campus
P.O. Box 123, Lira

7 February, 2025
The Director of Public Prosecutions
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
Plot 1, Lourdel Road, Nakasero
P.O. Box 1550, Kampala, Uganda

RE: ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT AGAINST WRONGFUL CHARGE OF

BUGEMBE UMARU FOR THEFT, CRIMINAL TRESPASS, AND RECEIVING
STOLEN PROPERTY

I, Jawia Kenneth Odar, an advocate of the High Court of Uganda, acting on

behalf of my client Bugembe Umaru, hereby submit this formal
administrative complaint regarding his wrongful charge in Criminal Case
No. 200 of 2024 currently before the Chief Magistrate’s Court at Kira.

1. That my client, Bugembe Umaru, has been mistakenly charged

with the offences of theft, criminal trespass, and receiving
stolen property in relation to the alleged theft of a Lexmark X854e
MFP Printer from High Tower School.
2. That my client was not present in Uganda at the time the
alleged theft occurred on 24th May 2024. He was attending an
agricultural conference in Zambia, as evidenced by his travel
documents, flight records, and conference attendance records,
which I hereby attach for your consideration.
3. That the primary evidence against my client is based on the
mistaken identification by witnesses who admit that the incident
happened late at night, making it difficult to correctly identify
individuals involved.
4. That despite the presentation of clear alibi evidence proving
my client’s absence from the country, the investigating officers
have refused to withdraw the charges, maintaining that he is
attempting to evade justice.
5. That my client’s continued prosecution amounts to a
miscarriage of justice and contravenes Article 28(1) of the
Constitution of Uganda, which guarantees the right to a fair hearing
and protection against wrongful prosecution.
6. That in the interest of justice, I humbly request your urgent
intervention to direct the withdrawal of charges against my
client in accordance with Article 120(3)(b) of the Constitution of
Uganda, which empowers your office to discontinue criminal
proceedings that lack merit.

In light of the above, I kindly request that your office urgently reviews this
matter and issues appropriate directives to prevent further injustice against
my client. I am available for any further clarifications or submissions that
may be required to facilitate the review of this complaint.
Yours Faithfully,
Jawia Kenneth Odar
Advocate
Firm A6 & Co. Advocates
P.O. Box 123, Lira
CC: Office of the Inspector General of Police

Workshop 2. (Charge Sheet, Notice of Motion for Unconditional Release,

Affidavit in Support of Notice of Motion.)
CHARGE SHEET.

UGANDA POLICE
POLICE FORM
53
KIRA POLICE
STATION
DATE: 11 NOVEMBER
2024
REF: MAKINDYE CRB
220/2024
CHARGE
UGANDA VERSUS:
RUKONI OBADIA alias BADASS M/A AGED 31 BUSINESSMEN,
RESIDENT OF LUWAFU, MAKINDYE DIVISIO, KAMPALA DITRICT TEL:
0722676789

COUNT 1 STATEMENT OF OFFENSE

FORGERY CONTRARY TO SECTION 319 OF THE PENAL CODE ACT CAP 324.

PARTICULARS OF OFFENSE
RUKONI OBADIA alias BADASS, on or about the 10th day of October 2024,
at Luwafu, Makindye Division, Kampala District, with intent to defraud
or deceive, forged a land ownership agreement, falsely purporting it to be
signed by the late Rwegira Protazio, knowing it to be false.

COUNT 2 STATEMENT OF OFFENSE

THREATENING VIOLENCE CONTRARY TO SECTION 77 OF THE PENAL CODE
ACT CAP 324.
PARTICULARS OF OFFENSE
RUKONI OBADIA alias BADASS, on or about the 8th day of October 2024,
at Kirundu Zone B, Luwafu, Makindye Division, Kampala District, with
intent to intimidate and cause harm, threatened Rwentoo Flowers by
instructing a group of men armed with spears and machetes to forcefully
evict her from the disputed land, thereby causing fear and panic.

COUNT 3 STATEMENT OF OFFENSE

UTERING FALSE DOCUMENTS CONTRARY TO SECTION 328 OF THE PENAL
CODE ACT CAP. 324.

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE
RUKONI OBADIA alias BADASS, on or about the 12th day of October 2024,
at Luwafu, Makindye Division, Kampala District, knowingly and
fraudulently uttered a false land ownership agreement to the Local
Council I Chairman and Uganda Police, purporting it to be a genuine
document issued by the late Rwegira Protazio, whereas he knew it to be
false.

……………………………………… ………………………………………
Officer Preferring Charge Magistrate

NOTICE OF MOTION.

THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

IN THE CHIEF MAGISTRATE’S COURT OF KIRA AT KIRA

MISC. APPLICATION NO. 001 OF 2025

 IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLE 23(4) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
THE

REPUBLIC OF UGANDA, 1995

AND
IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 25(2) OF THE POLICE ACT, CAP
324
AND
IN THE MATTER OF THE UNLAWFUL DETENTION OF RUKONI
OBADIA

KESUBI TRINITY ………………….……………………………………. APPLICANT

Versus

UGANDA ……………………………………………………………….. RESPONDENT

NOTICE OF MOTION

(Under Article 23(4) of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, Section

25(2) of the Police Act Cap 324 and Section 33 of the Judicature Act Cap 13)

TAKE NOTICE that on the 7th day of February 2025 at 10:30 O’clock in
the fore/afternoon, Counsel for the Applicant shall move this Honorable Court
for Orders that:

1. Release the detainee RUKONI OBADIA from police custody forthwith

and unconditionally.
2. The Respondent meets the costs of this application.

TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that the grounds of this application are contained
in the affidavit of Kesubi Trinity, the applicant that shall be read and relied
upon at the hearing but briefly, they are;

i. The detainee was arrested on 11th November 2024 by police officers

from Makindye Division.
ii. The detainee has since been detained at Kira Police Station beyond
48 hours without being charged in Court.
iii. The continued detention of the Applicant without charge is a violation
of Article 23(4) of the Constitution and Section 25 of the Police
Act.
iv. The detainee is entitled to be charged in court or be released
unconditionally.
v. It is in the interest of justice that this application is granted.

Dated at Kampala this 3rd day of February 2025.

Firm A6 & Co. Advocates

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT

Given under my hand and seal of this court this 3rd day of February 2025.

Registrar.

REGISTRAR

Drawn & Filed by:

Firm A6 & Co. Advocates
Plot 12, LDC Lira Campus
P.O. Box 123, Lira
Tel: 0777377061
FirmA6@gmail.com

AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT.

THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

IN THE CHIEF MAGISTRATE’S COURT OF KIRA AT KIRA

MISC. APPLICATION NO. 001 OF 2025

IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLE 23(4) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF

THE

REPUBLIC OF UGANDA, 1995

AND
IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 25(2) OF THE POLICE ACT, CAP
324
AND
IN THE MATTER OF THE UNLAWFUL DETENTION OF RUKONI
OBADIA
KESUBI TRINITY ………………….……………………………………. APPLICANT

Versus

UGANDA ……………………………………………………………….. RESPONDENT

AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE IN MOTION

I, KESUBI TRINITY, a female adult of sound mind and a resident of

Kizungu Zone B, Lukuli Ward, Makindye Division, Kampala District,
do solemnly swear and state as follows:

1. That I am a female Ugandan of sound mind, the Applicant in this

matter, and the biological mother to the detainee Rukoni Obadia and I
swear this affidavit in that capacity.
2. That my son was arrested on 11th November 2024 by police
officers from Makindye Division and detained at Kira Police
Station.
3. That since his arrest, he has not been charged in any court of law.
4. That his continued detention beyond 48 hours is in contravention of
Article 23(4) of the Constitution, which guarantees my right to
liberty and mandates that any arrested person be charged or released
within 48 hours.
5. That under Section 25(2) of the Police Act, he is entitled to seek
redress from this Honorable Court for my unconditional release.

6. That I have visited Kira Police Station multiple times to inquire about
his release, but my efforts have been unsuccessful.
7. That he has been held without any justification and without being
granted police bond.
8. That his continued detention is unlawful, oppressive, and a
violation of my fundamental human rights.
9. That unless this Honorable Court intervenes, the Police will continue to
hold him indefinitely without cause.
10. That it is in the interest of justice that this application is
granted, and he is released forthwith.
11. That whatever I have stated herein is true to the best of my
knowledge.

SWORN at Kampala this 3rd day of February 2025.

Kesubi Trinity
 DEPONENT

BEFORE ME:

……………………………………

COMMISSIONER FOR OATHS

Drawn & Filed by:

Firm A6 & Co. Advocates
Plot 12, LDC Lira Campus
P.O. Box 123, Lira
Tel: 0777377061
FirmA6@gmail.com