High Court frees man jailed for housebreaking, theft
Justice Gadenya Paul Wolimbwa of the Criminal Division quashed the convictions of Ahmed Sabiti, alias Cable, after finding that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he participated in the offences.
The judge ruled that although the prosecution had proved that a house was broken into and property stolen, it had failed to establish that Sabiti was responsible for the offences.
KAMPALA - The High Court in Kampala has overturned the conviction of a man sentenced to four years’ imprisonment for housebreaking and theft, ordering his immediate release unless he is being held on another lawful charge.
Justice Gadenya Paul Wolimbwa of the Criminal Division quashed the convictions of Ahmed Sabiti, alias Cable, after finding that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he participated in the offences.
In a judgment delivered on October 29, 2026, Wolimbwa allowed Sabiti’s appeal and set aside the two-year prison sentences imposed on each count by the Kasangati Chief Magistrate’s Court.
The sentences had been ordered to run consecutively, meaning Sabiti was expected to serve a total of four years in prison.
The judge ruled that although the prosecution had proved that a house was broken into and property stolen, it had failed to establish that Sabiti was responsible for the offences.
“The evidence may raise suspicion against the appellant. But suspicion, however strong, is not proof,” Wolimbwa stated.
The case arose from an incident on March 26, 2024, when occupants of a house in Kimwanyi, Kira, discovered that a back window had been broken and property, including mobile phones, was missing.
During investigations, police tracked one of the stolen phones, a Tecno Camon 19, to the home of a woman identified as Halima Bukirwa
However, the judge found that no witness had placed Sabiti at or near the house when the offences were committed and that no stolen property had been recovered from him.
Wolimbwa also ruled that the police officers’ accounts of what Bukirwa allegedly told them amounted to hearsay because she had not testified in court, where Sabiti could have challenged her claims through cross-examination.
The judge said the telephone records established communication between Sabiti and Huzail but did not reveal the subject of their conversations or place Sabiti at the scene of the crime.
He added that the prosecution had not laid a proper factual foundation for its claim that Sabiti stopped reporting to work after the incident.
In his defence, Sabiti told the court that he had known Huzail for many years and had helped him register a SIM card. He said they had also discussed a skills-training project
Sabiti denied participating in the offences, saying he was in Mengo/Kisenyi on the day of the incident, rather than in Kimwanyi, Kira.
The judge found that the prosecution had failed to disprove Sabiti’s alibi and faulted the trial magistrate for finding that Sabiti had failed to establish it.
Wolimbwa said the law places the burden on the prosecution to disprove an accused person’s alibi, rather than requiring the accused to prove that he was elsewhere when the crime occurred.
The judge further noted that the prosecution’s case depended entirely on circumstantial evidence, which must exclude any reasonable explanation consistent with the accused person’s innocence before a conviction can be sustained.
Sabiti was convicted by the Kasangati Chief Magistrate’s Court on April 16, 2026, and sentenced to two years’ imprisonment on each count.
He subsequently applied to the High Court for permission to appeal out of time. The application was granted on August 26, 2026.
Although the judge found that the trial court had also failed to explain Sabiti’s options when he was called upon to present his defence, he ruled that the omission had not caused a miscarriage of justice because Sabiti was represented by a lawyer and had given evidence under oath.
The judge also observed that the trial court had failed to specify how much time Sabiti had spent on remand and deduct it from the sentence, as required by law.
He cautioned trial courts against treating an accused person’s decision to plead not guilty as a reason for imposing a harsher sentence, noting that every accused person has the right to require the prosecution to prove its case.
Wolimbwa further said sentences for housebreaking and theft arising from the same incident should ordinarily run concurrently, unless the court gives reasons for ordering them to run consecutively.
The judge ordered Sabiti’s immediate release after quashing his convictions and setting aside the sentences, unless he was being lawfully held on another matter.
He added that any party dissatisfied with the judgment could appeal to the Court of Appeal within 14 days.