Oyeki Charles v Uganda [2002] UGSC 15 (19 March 2002)

# Oyeki Charles v Uganda [2002] UGSC 15 (19 March 2002) [ Share this document on WhatsApp opens in new tab __](https://api.whatsapp.com/send?text=Oyeki+Charles+v+Uganda+%5B2002%5D+UGSC+15+%2819+March+2002%29+-+https%3A%2F%2Fulii.org%2Fen%2Fakn%2Fug%2Fjudgment%2Fugsc%2F2002%2F15%2Feng%402002-03-19) [ Share this document on X opens in new tab __](https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=Oyeki+Charles+v+Uganda+%5B2002%5D+UGSC+15+%2819+March+2002%29+-+https%3A%2F%2Fulii.org%2Fen%2Fakn%2Fug%2Fjudgment%2Fugsc%2F2002%2F15%2Feng%402002-03-19) [ Share this document on Facebook opens in new tab __](https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=https://ulii.org/en/akn/ug/judgment/ugsc/2002/15/eng@2002-03-19) [ Share this document on LinkedIn opens in new tab __](https://www.linkedin.com/sharing/share-offsite/?url=https://ulii.org/en/akn/ug/judgment/ugsc/2002/15/eng@2002-03-19) [ Share this document by email __](mailto:?subject=Take%20a%20look%20at%20this%20document%20from%20ULII:%20Oyeki%20Charles%20v%20Uganda%20\[2002\]%20UGSC%2015%20%E2%80%A6&body=https://ulii.org/en/akn/ug/judgment/ugsc/2002/15/eng@2002-03-19) __Save [ Download RTF (18.3 KB) ](/en/akn/ug/judgment/ugsc/2002/15/eng@2002-03-19/source) Toggle dropdown * [Download PDF](/en/akn/ug/judgment/ugsc/2002/15/eng@2002-03-19/source.pdf) Report a problem ##### Is there something wrong with this document? Problem category *Incorrect informationMissing informationNo PDF downloadDocument is emptyDocument is not accessible on my deviceOther What's the problem? * Your email address * CancelReport problem __ * Share * [ Download RTF (18.3 KB) ](/en/akn/ug/judgment/ugsc/2002/15/eng@2002-03-19/source) * [Download PDF](/en/akn/ug/judgment/ugsc/2002/15/eng@2002-03-19/source.pdf) * * * * * Report a problem __ ##### Oyeki Charles v Uganda [2002] UGSC 15 (19 March 2002) Copy citation __Save * __Document detail * __Related documents Citation Oyeki Charles v Uganda [2002] UGSC 15 (19 March 2002) Copy Media Neutral Citation [2002] UGSC 15 Copy Court [Supreme Court of Uganda](/en/judgments/UGSC/) Judgment date 19 March 2002 Language English Summary ###### Flynote * Criminal law|Evidence Law|Evaluation of Evidence Read full summary ###### Case summary The main complaint on appeal was that the corroboration was insufficient. The court observed that the victim’s daughter who responded to the alarm found the appellant on top of her mother having sexual intercourse and the appellant’s son also in response to the alarm raised by the victim’s daughter found the appellant having sexual intercourse with the victim. The appeal was dismissed __ ##### Ask AI Ask questions and understand this document faster using AI. __Ask AI * * * Skip to document content _**THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA**_ **_I_** _**N THE SUPREME COURT OF UGANDA**_ _**AT MENGO**_ _**CORAM: ODOKI – CJ, ODER – JSC, KAROKORA – JSC, MULENGA - JSC, KANYEIHAMBA - JSC**_ _**CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 50 OF 2000**_ _**B E T**_**W** _**E E N**_ _**OYEK**_** _I_******_**CHARLES: :::::**____**:::::**____**:::::**____**APPELLANT**_ _**VS**_ _**UGANDA:**____**:::::: : ::::: :::::: RESPONDENT**_ _**JUDGMENT OF THE COURT**_ The appellant was indicted, tried and convicted of rape c/ss 117 and 118 of the Penal Code Act. The particulars of the offence were that on 16-07-95, at Jemba Village in Mpigi District, he had unlawful carnal knowledge of Nanyenga Tereza who was PW2 at the appellant's trial. He appealed against his conviction to the Court of Appeal. That appeal failed. He has now appealed to this Court. There are 2 grounds of appeal, the second one of which was against the severity of sentence of 15 years imprisonment imposed on the appellant by the trial court. The appellant's learned Counsel abandoned this ground, rightly so in our view, because it is incompetent." The remaining ground which was argued by the appellant'$ learned Counsel was that the learned Justices of Appeal erred in law and fact by finding that there was proof of forceful sexual intercourse. The thrust of the argument by the appellant's learned Counsel was that the evidence of the complainant, (PW2) was not sufficiently corroborated. We think that this argument has no merit, because the evidence shows that the complainant's daughter Nakayima Seforoza (PW3) responded to the scene when her mother was attacked by the appellant and she raised an alarm. PW3 found the appellant on top of her mother having sexual intercourse with her (the complainant). She then ran to where her mother and herself had been to a party and called others, including the victim's son (Musata). They found the appellant still on top of the complainant having sexual intercourse with her. The trial court accepted the evidence of PW3 as corroborative of the complaint's evidence that sexual intercourse took place and that it was the appellant who raped her. We are unable to say that the Court of Appeal erred in that respect. PW3's evidence was sufficient corroboration of PW2's evidence of sexual intercourse and that the appellant was the culprit. Consequently we see no merit in the appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. _**B. ODOKI**_ **CHIEF JUSTICE** _**A.**_**_H._****_O. ODER_****** **JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT** **_A. N. KAROKORA_** **JU** _**STICE**_**OF** _**THE SUPREME COURT**_ **_J. MULENGA_** **JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT** **_G_****.**_**W. KANYEIHAMBA**_ _**JUSTICE**_**OF THE SUPREME COURT** #### __Related documents #### More documents like this one __Suggestions generated by AI. This feature is not currently available. ▲ To the top >