The High Court of Uganda at Bushenyi clarifies that minor omissions do not invalidate a charge unless they cause miscarriage of justice, accused need not prove alibi, but the prosecution must place...

Waboga David
Sep 18
5 min read

Facts

The appellant, Byaruhanga Paul, was convicted by the Bushenyi Chief Magistrates Court on 21 January 2025 for attempted murder under Section 204 of the Penal Code Act.

The incident occurred on 9 June 2023 at Ntaza Cell, Bushenyi District, where the appellant allegedly entered the complainant’s (Bagyenyi Charles) bedroom with a panga and inflicted severe injuries on his hands, shoulder, and ear.

The complainant was rescued after raising an alarm and was treated at KIU Hospital, where his injuries were classified as dangerous harm.

The prosecution presented four witnesses to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant raised a defense of alibi, claiming he was at Kitagata hot springs with his cousin (DW2) from 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM on the day of the incident.

The trial court rejected this defense, convicted the appellant, sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment, and ordered him to pay UGX 5,000,000 in compensation to the complainant.

The appellant challenged the conviction, sentence, and compensation order on six grounds, alleging errors in law and fact by the trial magistrate.

On appeal, he raised six grounds: defective charge sheet, reliance on non-exhibited evidence (PID1), conjectural reasoning, disregard of alibi, failure to account for remand period, and an unlawful compensation order.

Issues on Appeal

Whether the conviction was based on an incurably defective charge sheet.
Whether the trial court erred by relying on a non-exhibited identification document (PID1) and unfounded reasoning.
Whether the trial court improperly disregarded the defence of alibi.
Whether the trial court erred in failing to account for remand time when sentencing.
Whether the compensation order of UGX 5 million was unlawful, unfair, or unreasonable.

Submissions

Appellant’s Submissions (Ms. Mubiru & Arwho Associated Advocates)

Ground 1

The charge sheet was defective because it did not specify the subsection of Section 204 of the Penal Code Act, and a Grade One Magistrate, lacking jurisdiction, endorsed it.

Grounds 2 and 3

The trial magistrate relied on an unexhibited document (PID1) and made an unsubstantiated finding that the complainant lost an eye, which was not supported by evidence.

Ground 4

The trial magistrate failed to evaluate the appellant’s alibi defense and improperly concluded that the appellant was identified at the scene.

Ground 5

The trial magistrate did not account for the five days the appellant spent on remand, rendering the five-year sentence illegal under Article 23(8) of the Constitution.

Ground 6

The compensation order of UGX 5,000,000 was unjustified, lacked a specified payment timeline, and was unreasonable given the appellant’s financial status.

Respondent’s Submissions (Chief State Attorney Batson Baguma)

The respondent conceded to Ground 5, acknowledging that the trial magistrate failed to consider the remand period.

For other grounds, the respondent argued that the charge sheet was valid under Section 88(b) of the Magistrates Courts Act (MCA), the prosecution evidence was sufficient to prove intent and identification, and the compensation order was within the magistrate’s discretion under Section 197(1) MCA.

Court’s Findings

The High Court re-evaluated the evidence as required under Kifamunte Henry v. Uganda [1998] UGSC 20 and addressed each ground as follows:

Defective Charge Sheet
The court found that the charge sheet was not incurably defective. Although it omitted the specific subsection of Section 204, it referenced the provision and included sufficient particulars to inform the appellant of the offense, as required by Sections 85 and 88(b) of the MCA. The endorsement by a Grade One Magistrate, who lacked jurisdiction to try the case, did not invalidate the charge sheet, as magistrates are permitted to read charges and remand accused persons (Sebahurira v. Uganda).
No miscarriage of justice was proven, as defined in Dratia v. Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 154 of 2011).
Ground 1 failed.

Reliance on PID1 and Conjecture
The court found that the trial magistrate erred by relying on an unexhibited document (PID1) to conclude that the complainant lost an eye, as no such evidence was admitted. The medical document was also misreferenced as PEX1 instead of PEX PF3.

This constituted a miscarriage of justice, as the magistrate’s finding was based on conjecture. However, the court re-evaluated the evidence and found sufficient proof of intent to cause death based on the prosecution’s testimony (PW1, PW2, PW3, PW4) and the medical report (PEX PF3), which confirmed injuries from a sharp object consistent with a panga.

The appellant’s actions, including targeting the complainant’s neck, supported the element of intent under Section 359 of the Penal Code Act and Syson Muganga v. Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 33 of 2005).

Grounds 2 and 3 succeeded, but the conviction was upheld on re-evaluated evidence.

Defence of Alibi and Identification
The court found that the trial magistrate failed to evaluate the evidence of DW2 (appellant’s cousin) in support of the alibi. However, the prosecution’s evidence placed the appellant at the scene. PW1, PW2, and PW3, who were familiar with the appellant (a relative), testified to seeing him at 3:00 PM with a panga, and his clothes were blood-stained post-attack.

The appellant and DW2 provided contradictory timelines (9:00 AM vs. 4:00 PM) for their presence at Kitagata hot springs, undermining the alibi. Per Bogere Moses & Anor v. Uganda (SCCA No. 1 of 1997), the court evaluated both versions and found the prosecution’s evidence credible.

Ground 4 failed.
Failure to Consider the Period Spent on Remand
The court found that the trial magistrate did not account for the five days the appellant spent on remand (15–20 June 2023), violating Article 23(8) of the Constitution and Guideline 15 of the Sentencing Guidelines (2013). This rendered the five-year sentence illegal.

The court upheld the five-year sentence but deducted the remand period, resulting in a net sentence of 4 years, 11 months, and 25 days, effective from 21 January 2025.

Ground 5 succeeded.

Compensation Order:
The compensation order of UGX 5,000,000 was within the magistrate’s discretion under Section 197(1) MCA. The injuries (loss of an ear lobe, cuts on palms and shoulder) and medical expenses justified the amount.

The court found no requirement for the order to specify a payment timeline, and Section 197(3) MCA clarifies that compensation is payable after the appeal period or appeal determination.

The appellant’s claim of financial hardship was not substantiated with evidence. Ground 6 failed.

Holding

The appeal succeeded in part.
Orders
1. The conviction for attempted murder under Section 204 of the Penal Code Act was upheld.
2. The five-year sentence was set aside as illegal and substituted with a sentence of 4 years, 11 months, and 25 days, accounting for the five days spent on remand, effective from 21 January 2025.
3. The compensation order of UGX 5,000,000 was upheld.

Key Principles

On Charge Sheet Defects, minor omissions (e.g., failure to cite subsections) do not invalidate a charge unless they cause miscarriage of justice (Ss. 85, 88 MCA; Dratia v Uganda).
Courts shall only rely on properly exhibited evidence; conjecture or non-admitted exhibits are fatal misdirections.
The accused need not prove an alibi, but the prosecution must place him at the scene (Bogere Moses v Uganda SCCA No. 1 of 1997). Contradictory alibi evidence weakens defence.
Deduction of remand period is mandatory under Article 23(8) of the Constitution and Sentencing Guidelines.
Courts retain wide discretion under section 197 MCA to order reasonable compensation concurrent with other punishments.

Conclusion

This case reinforces that procedural defects will not automatically nullify proceedings unless they cause injustice. Sentencing courts must deduct remand time to avoid illegality, while appellate courts will correct reliance on inadmissible evidence but still uphold convictions if other evidence suffices. Compensation remains discretionary but must be reasonable and justified.

Read the full case