In Uganda, according to Black's Law Dictionary, a "trial" is the judicial examination of issues

between parties, whether they be issues of law or of fact, conducted before a competent tribunal

according to the law of the land to determine such issues.

Here's a more detailed explanation:

Judicial Examination:

A trial is a formal process where a court examines the facts and law of a case to reach a decision.

Before a Competent Tribunal:

The examination takes place before a court or other body with the authority to hear and decide

the case.

Issues of Law or Fact:

The trial addresses both legal questions (e.g., what the law says) and factual questions (e.g.,

what happened).

Purpose of Determining Issues:

The primary goal of a trial is to resolve the dispute or determine the facts and legal issues in the

case.

According to the Law of the Land:

The trial must follow the established legal procedures and rules of the country.

TYPES OF TRIAL

a) Criminal trial

In Uganda, a criminal trial is a legal process where the state, represented by the Director of

Public Prosecutions (DPP), prosecutes an individual accused of committing a crime, aiming to

prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt before a court of law.

lOMoAR cPSD|38090265

b) Civil trial

In Uganda, a civil trial is a legal process where a court resolves disputes between individuals,

organizations or combination of both where the outcome typically involves a compensation e.g.

law of contract, law of tort, law of negligence.

c) Administrative trial
In Uganda, an administrative trial refers to a process where disputes or issues arising from

actions or decisions of public bodies, government entities, or statutory bodies are resolved,

often by tribunals or other administrative bodies, rather than through the traditional court

system.

d) Labour trial

In Uganda, a labour trial refers to a legal process in which disputes between employers and

employees (or trade unions) are resolved by a court or tribunal. These disputes typically involve

issues such as wrongful dismissal, unpaid wages, working conditions, discrimination,

harassment, or violations of labor rights and employment contracts.

ADVERSARIAL SYSTEM

An adversarial system is a legal process where opposing parties present their cases and evidence

before an impartial judge or jury, who then decides the truth and applies the law.

EXAMINATION OF WITNESS

According to the Black’s Law Dictionary,1

examination is defined as questioning of a witness under oath. Literally, it can be defined as the act of
looking at or considering something carefully in order to discover something.

As a general rule, every witness is required to take an oath or make a clear affirmation that he

or she will offer the truth.

According to the Black’s law dictionary a witness is a person called to court to testify and give

evidence.

B J. Odoki3 defines examination of witnesses as the process by which the prosecution or the

accused produce there evidence in court to establish their respective cases. It is the means of

proving or disproving a charge.

Uganda as a common law, examination of a witness is elucidated in the Evidence Act per

Section 1344 , which stipulates that the order in which witnesses are produced and examined,

shall be regulated by the law and practice for the time being relating to civil and criminal

procedure respectively, and, in the absence of any such law, by the description of the court.

The process for securing the attendance of witness in civil matters is provided in o.18 of the
civil procedure Rules. O.18r(2) of the civil procedure rules, it provides that on the day fixed for

hearing the suit, the party having the right to begin shall state his case and produce his case plus

evidence in support of issues he is bound to prove. The opposite party shall also thereafter, state

his case and produce his evidence.

Under O.18(4), the evidence of the witness in attendance shall be taken orally in open court in

presence of the trial judge and shall be recorded by the judge in a narrative.

In criminal matters, attendance is voluntary but failure can be compelled in Bukenya and

others v Uganda, court held that it couldn’t inquire into failure of calling witnesses.

In civil proceedings, court cannot compel attendance of the witness, it’s up to the party to a

case to ensure that witnesses testify in their favor. In criminal matters, Courts carry powers to

issue witness summons to compel their attendance to testify and be cross examined as well

The order of examination of witnesses is laid down in section 137(1) of the evidence act and it

provides that, the witness shall be 1st examined-in-chief, then (if the diverse party so desires)

cross examined, then (if the party calling them so desires) re-examined.

RATIONALE OF EXAMINATION OF WITNESS

Examination of witnesses is an important principle in which witness take a stand of his or her

words. For the protection of the integrity of the evidence.

A guide to evidence law in Uganda

It is a very important part of a criminal and civil trial. It is not important only for law students,

it is also important for practicing lawyers to know the art and law related to examination of

witness.

STAGES IN EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES

Examination is done through a three-stage process. Each witness is examined in chief then if

the adverse party desires, they cross-examine. Re-examination also happens when the party

desires.

1. Examination-in-chief

A witness shall be first examined-in-chief, then if the adverse party so desires, cross-examined,

then if the party calling them so desires reexamined.6 Under Section 136(1)7, examination in chief is the
examination of a witness by a party who calls him or her.
In addition, Examination-in-chief is the term given to the initial questioning of one’s own

witness8

. Section 1539 is to the effect that the court in its discretion may permit the person who

calls the witness to put any question to him or her, which might have been put to him or her by

the adverse party.

A witness is not allowed to make a speech, but responds to questions put to him by or on behalf

of the party calling him in the course of his examination-in-chief.

Rules governing examination-in-chief

1. Leading Questions

A leading question under section14010 means any question suggesting the answer,

which the person putting it wishes or expects to receive. Such questions are not

generally permitted in examination in chief but maybe put in cross-

Section 137(1) of the Evidence Act

7 Evidence Act

examination 11 . Therefore leading questions may be asked in cross-examination as provided under

The rational for the rule is to prevent the witness from being led into giving only evidence

advantageous to the party calling him or her rather than more spontaneous narrative warts and

all.

In the case of Moor V Moor,13 it was held that if the evidence is elicited by leading questions,

it remains admissible but the weight to be attached to it may be reduced+6

You cannot ordinarily ask leading questions of your own witnesses. They should be allowed to

give their own evidence, albeit that the questions asked may point them in the right direction.

The court or judge should restrain and control the improper use of leading questions at trial.

Exception.

The leading questions may be asked with the permission of the court as provided under

Section14114therefore the rule is also relaxed in relation to introductory and u disputed leading
questions may also be put to a witness whom the judge rules hostile.

In addition, if the court grants leave for a witness to be treated as hostile he may be cross

examined through leading questions as if he were an opposing witness (which in a sense he is).

In Turner,15 the trial judge had been faced with the problem of a witness in a sex case who

appeared to have great difficulty overcoming her embarrassment in court. She could remember

the facts well enough, but counsel had great difficulty in getting her to describe facts relating

to sexual acts or behavior that were not in issue (the real issue in respect of most of the counts

was her age at the relevant time). In those circumstances, it was held that the judge had acted

rightly in allowing the witness’s statement to be read to her in court before inviting her to adopt

its contents if she thought they were correct.

11 Advocacy Manual. 17. 3.1

12The Evidence Act

13 (1954) WLR 927

14 The Evidence Act.

15 [2012] EWCA Crim 1786

lOMoAR cPSD|38090265

Leading questions are acceptable when they relate to introductory matters such as the witnesses

name and occupation, when they concern matters that are not contested or when they are simply

designed to direct a witness’s attention to the precise issue on which she is to give evidence.

2. Refreshing memory

A witness may refresh his or her memory in a witness box by difference to a document that the

witness made or verified if the document was made at the time of the event in question. This is

provided under Section 158(1), which shows that a witness may while under examination

refresh his or her memory by referring to any writing made, by himself or herself.

Refreshing memory can be categorized into two;

 Refreshing memory before testifying:

A witness should not be prevented from reading a copy of his statement before testifying. As
the CA said in Richardson,16 "Testimony in the witness box becomes more a test of memory

than of truthfulness if witnesses are deprived of the opportunity of checking their recollection

beforehand by reference to statements or notes made at a time closer to the events in question.

Refusal of access to statements would tend to create difficulties for honest witnesses but would

be likely to do little to hamper dishonest witnesses.

 Refreshing memory while testifying

Under section, 157(3)

17 may with permission of the court refresh his or her memory by

reference to any document referred to a copy of that document if the court is satisfied.

In Mangena18, in which the CA held that a judge could in his discretion allow all of the

prosecution’s witnesses to refresh their memories as long as each satisfied the conditions set

out in section 157(3) of the Evidence Act.

3. Previous Consistent or Self-Serving Statements

The general rule in both civil and criminal cases, a witness may not be asked in chief whether

formally the witness has made statement consistent with his or her testimony. What is banned

is proof of the prior statement as evidence of the witness’s consistency.

16 [1971] 2 QB 484

17 Evidence Act

18 [2009] EWCA Crim 2535

lOMoAR cPSD|38090265

 In Roberts19 “Essentially, evidence of previous statements as evidence of accused’s

consistency is inadmissible”. The rationale behind it is that the repetition of a story does

not generally make it any it more likely that it is true.

There are three long established exceptions to the rule that evidence of previous consistent

statements is inadmissible.

I. Statements rebutting charges of subsequent fabrication.

Evidence of the previous consistent statement of a witness is at common law admissible to rebut
a charge that he has fabricated (or perhaps unwittingly changed or reconstructed) his story at

some later time or date. Merely calling him a liar is not enough.

In Oyesiku20 the CA held that: 'If the credit of the witness is impugned as to some material fact

to which he deposes upon the ground that his account is a late invention or has been lately

devised or reconstructed, even though not with conscious dishonesty, that makes admissible a

statement to the same effect as the account he gave as a witness, if it was made by the witness

contemporaneously with the event or at a time sufficiently early to be inconsistent with the

suggestion that his account is a late invention or construction’

II. Previous consistent identification

Evidence is admissible of a former identification of the accused by a witness out of court. It

may be given either by that witness or by some other person present at the identification and

may include the words declaratory of the identification as explained in R V Christie21 where a

boy gave unsworn evidence identifying the accused as the man who had indecently assaulted

him, a majority of the House of Lords held that both the boys’ mother and policeman could

give evidence of a former identification by the boy when shortly after the offence, he had

approached the accused and had said, that is the man.

Therefore, it is improper to identify the accused for the first time when he is in the dock except

when the accused refuses to take part in an identification parade.

19 [1942] 1 All ER 187, Larkin [1943] KB 174)

20 (1971) 56 Cr App R 240

21 (1914) AC 545

lOMoAR cPSD|38090265

III. Statement made on accusation.

A statement made by an accused when taxed with incriminating facts is admissible as evidence

of attitude and reaction in R V Tooke22 it was held that the statement must be relevant as well

as spontaneous and it is a matter for the judge’s discretion where the dividing line falls.

Statement will not be relevant if it does not add anything to the evidence already before the jury
about the accused reaction and where the accused makes a mixed stamen both statements are

admissible.

IV. Complaints in sexual cases

In sexual cases, whether or not consent is in issue, evidence of a complaint made

voluntarily and at the first opportunity reasonable afforded may be given by the

complaint and by any person to whom the com plaint was made as evidence of the

complaints consistency and if consent is in issue as evidence to disprove such consent.

Oliver Wendell Holmes J regarded this exception as prevented survival of the ancient

requirement that a woman should make hue and cry as preliminary to an appeal of rape in

Commonwealth V Cleary23. Thus in R V Camelleri24 the court of appeal held that this

exception applies in both male and females cases.

CROSS-EXAMINATION

The questioning of a witness at a trial or hearing by the party opposed to the party who called

the witness to testify.25 Also termed as direct examination. This refers to the examination of a

witness by the adverse party, Section 136(2)26 and this is the second stage of examination in

the courts of law. According to Philip Wendell, "Cross-Examination is double-edged weapon,

if you know how to wield, it helps to cut enemy's neck otherwise, it cuts own hands”27

Cross-examination undoubtedly affords the best security against incomplete, distorted, or false

evidence, and in putting questions upon cross-examination, much greater latitude in asking

questions is allowed than upon examination in chief. Section 137(2) states the examination and

22 (1919) 90 Cr App R 417,CA

23 (1898) 172 Mass 175

24 1922 2 KB 122

25 Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004) , Page 1138

26 Evidence Act

27 https://www.srdlawnotes.com/2017/02/what-are-different-stages-of.html

lOMoAR cPSD|38090265

10
cross-examination must relate to relevant facts, but the cross-examination need not be confined

to the facts to which the witness testified on his or her examination-in-chief.

Section 138 stipulates that a person summoned to produce a document does not become a

witness by the mere fact that he or she produces it, and cannot be cross-examined unless he or

she is called as a witness.

Purpose of Cross-examination

1. Cross-examination may be conducted for a number of purposes, but will usually

be intended to challenge or undermine part or all of the witness’s evidence in

chief. The cross-examiner may make a direct attack on the accuracy,

completeness and/or veracity of the evidence itself, or he may seek to undermine

it indirectly by attacking the credibility of the witness.

All prosecution witnesses must be cross-examined. Section 72 of the Trial on Indictment

Act.28

Failure to cross-examine leads to the inference that the evidence is accepted as being true. As

stated by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in James Sawoabiri & Another v Uganda29

“An omission or neglect to challenge the evidence in chief on a material or essential point

by cross examination would lead to an inference that the evidence is accepted, subject to

its being assailed as inherently incredible or possibly untrue.”

2. In either case, leading questions are not just permitted, but expected. The secret

of a good cross-examination is usually to get the witness to say or accept what

you want him to say or accept, or failing that, to put your version of the facts to

him and hope that the court of jury is not impressed with his denial.

“You have hated the accused for years, haven’t you?” “No”

“Yes, you have, ever since he told your wife about Shatra, and you wanted to get even

with him this time” “No”

“So you made up this story, which is a pack of lies” “No, I’m telling the truth”

The witness who may be cross-examined;

28 Trial on Indictments Act Cap 23

lOMoAR cPSD|38090265

11

a) The witness who has been examine-in-chief.

b) A sworn witness, whether or not examined-in-chief.

c) Witness as to character.

d) Witness called by co-accused.

e) The accused where he testifies.

Some witnesses however are totally or partially exempt from cross –examination including;

a) A witness called merely to produce a document under a Subpoena duces tecum.

b) A witness genuinely unable to give evidence on the matter in question, sworn by

mistake, examination-in-chief having barely commenced.

Additionally in Hobbs V Tinling &Co. Ltd30, the court of appeal held that a witness who has

given no evidence in chief could not be cross-examined as to his credit. Also, in the case of

illness before or during cross-examination, the judge may let the trial continue on the basis of

the evidence already given.

The objectives and scope of cross examination are;

 To test the accuracy of the evidence in- chief.

 To weaken or destroy examination –in-chief, if possible.

 To obtain evidence that will assist the party’s own case by testimony of the opponent’s

witness.

 To show that the witness is unreliable and for that purpose may attack his testimony or

credibility.

 To obtain necessary facts that may be favourable to party’s case or to weaken or dilute

the strengthen of evidence-in-chief.

The scope of cross-examination is wider than that of examination–in-chief. Cross-examination

is not limited as are questions designed to discrete the character of the witness. One may be

crossexamined as to previous statement one has made relative to the subject matter. Notably is

that evidence which is inadmissible in chief remains inadmissible in cross-examination.

lOMoAR cPSD|38090265

12

Cross-examination on documents

Where a party calls for and inspects a document other than a memory –refreshing documents

in the possession of anther party, the other party can require the first party to put it in evidence.

A person called to produce a document basing on section13831 that a person summoned to

produce does not become a witness by mere fact that he or she produces it, and cannot be
crossexamined unless he or she is called a witness.

Cross-examination as to credit.

There numerous different types of question, which can be put in cross-examination, with a view

to attacking the credit of the witnesses, called for the other side. For example, you may ask

question to show that their testimony contains errors or omission, inconsistencies, exaggeration

or improbabilities. You may ask questions about their means of knowledge, their opportunity

for observing what they purport to have observed.

1. The character of the complainant on charges of rape.

At common law on charge of rape, the complainant may be cross-examined on previous acts

of sexual intercourse with the accused and if she denies such acts they may be proved.

Additionally, a witness of character may be cross-examined as provided under Section 13932as

to witness to character.

However, at common law, evidence is not admissible in chief of the complaints acts of

intercourse with men other than the accused. In R V Holmes 33 it was held that if the

complainant denies such acts, they could not be proved in rebuttal. The reason is that generally

such acts are properly treated as a collateral issue. Thus if acts could be said to be relevant

rebuttal evidence was admissible.

2). Previous inconsistent statement.

Proof on previous statement is governed by section 14434 which states that a witness may be

cross-examined as to previous statements made by him or her in writing or reduced into writing
and relevant to matters in question, without the writing being shown to him or her but if it is

31 Evidence Act

32 Evidence Act.

33 (1871) LR 1 CCR 334

34 Evidence Act

lOMoAR cPSD|38090265

13

intended to contradict the witness by writing his or her attention must be before the writing can

be proved.

Additionally, proof of previous inconsistent statement is governed by section 4 and section 5

of Criminal Procedure Act 1865, which provides that

• if a witness, upon cross-examination as to former statement made by him relative to the

subject-matter of the indictment or proceeding are inconsistence with his present

testimony, does not distinctly a admit that he has made such statement.

• A witness may be cross-examined as to previous statements made by him in writing or

reduced in to writing, relative to the subject matter of the indictment.

The rule of finally of answers to collateral questions and four exceptions.

The rule is that where a witness during cross-examination, answers question on

collateral matters the answers are conclusive, the cross-examination party cannot then

proceed to impeach the credit of the witness by calling other witness to contradict that

witness.

Collateral matters according to Attorney-General V Hitchcock35 said if the answer of

witness is matter which you would be allowed on your own part to prove in evidence.

RE-EXAMINATION.

According to section 136(3)

36re-examination of a witness is the examination of a witness,

subsequent to cross examination by the party who called him or her.

After cross-examination a witness may be re-examined by the party calling him. except with
the leave of the judge, re-examination must be confined to the matters which a rose on

crossexamination. It is an exercise in repairing damages done37

In re-examination new evidence may not be introduced without the leave of court. leading

questions are also not allowed.

35 (1847) 1 Exch 91 Pollock.

36 Evidence Act.

37 Inns of Court School of Law Evidence 1998|99, page 86. .

lOMoAR cPSD|38090265

14

Examination by court.

Court can examine too in times of seeking, verify on mysteries circumstances

Rational of re-examination.

To repair as much as practicable, the damage done as elaborated in Prince V Samo38 during

cross-examination and to clear up any misunderstanding of ambiguities that may have a risen

during cross examination.

The effectiveness of witness examination in Uganda hinges on adherence to legal procedures

and the skilful application of questioning techniques. The process aims to ensure that the

evidence presented is reliable and that the rights of both the witnesses and the accused are

respected. Ultimately, the examination of witnesses is pivotal in the pursuit of justice, as it

helps the court to ascertain the facts and make informed decisions.

The case of R v Lushington exp otta39 defines an exhibit as a document or other thing shown

to a witness and referred to by the witness in evidence and in this scenario the exhibits include

rhino horn, gun license and a Caska pistol.

At common law it is within the power of and is the duty of constables to retain for use in court

things which may be evidence of crime and which have come into possession of constables

without wrong on their part.

Any police officer investigating alleged crimes has a duty to record and retain material which

may be relevant to the investigation

police officer who is lawfully are any premises or any other place may seize anything there if

he or she has reasonable ground to believe (a) that there thing might be used as an exhibit in

relation to an offence

As a general rule the court entrust the prosecution with exhibits pending trial and after

committal. The prosecution duty was brought out in the case of R V Stipendiary magistrate

38 (1838) 7 A & E 627

39 [1984] 1 QB 420

40 Police Act Cap 303

lOMoAR cPSD|38090265

15

at Lambetti and another exp Mc Comb41

.Sir John Donaldson Mr. Defined the prosecution

duty towards documents to take proper care to preserve the exhibits form loss or damage.;

(a)To cooperate with the defence in order to allow them reasonable access toe exhibits for

purpose of inspection and examination.

(b)To produce exhibits of trial.

TENDERING IN OF EXHIBITS

In Ugandan criminal law, an "exhibit" is a physical or documentary item presented as evidence

in court to be inspected by the jury or judge, such as a weapon, document, or photograph.

How exhibits are handled and kept

Police exhibit recovered at the scene of the crime must be handled in a systematic manner since

exhibits form part of the evidence.

Section 942 provides that a police officer or other person may arrest, take from person arrested

any offensives weapons which he or she has about his or her person and shall deliver all

weapons so taken to the court.

Section 6943 provides that when a police officer has reason to believe that material evidence

can be obtained in connection with an offence for which an arrest has been made or authorized,
any police officer may search the dwelling or place of business of the person so arrested or of

the person for whom the warrant of arrest has been issued and may take possession of anything

which might reasonably be used as evidence in any criminal proceedings.

According to the facts where the police officer entered in Okinawa’s room and recovered a

pistol, rhino horn and gun license

Section 944 provides that after the search the officer must record any recovered object in a

search. This must be included in the investigation diary. In PF2 the recovered item will be

included as evidence in the exhibit book PB and an exhibit book must be issued and kept in a

case file.

41 [1983] 1 All ER 321

42 The Criminal Procedure Code Act Cap 116

43 The Magistrates Court Act Cap 16

44 Criminal Procedure Code Act Cap 116

lOMoAR cPSD|38090265

16

Exhibit must be properly marked and labeled by the investigating officer showing the case file

number where the exhibit need for instance examination, both the exhibit needs for instance

examination, both the exhibit and the specimen sample should be labeled and sent to the expert

by the investigating officer. The chain of handling the exhibits must not be broken.

As seen in the case of Uganda V Albino Ajok45 it was held that the exhibit were badly handled

by the police inspector and no reliance whatsoever could be placed on them because the

inspector calling the witness Ojul to Identify the exhibits the inspector instead sent the exhibits

to

Ojul’s house by the one William Okello who was not a police man and did not give evidence

for Ojul to identify which broke the chain of handling the exhibits.

It was further held that, during the search, the accused, Alfred Okello (PWL) found money

with the accused, he removed it and handed it to the inspector who decided to treat the notes as

exhibits, he should have signed them in his name as it was both the inspector and Okello
claimed to have written on the notes thus the court was unable to say that the money produced

is that which was found with the accused and in any case there is no certain evidence that the

deceased had money with her.

The exhibit must be securely kept under lock and key kept by the officer in charge of the police

exhibit store. This is the officer who will finally hand over the exhibits in court during the trial.

The chain of handling of police exhibits is so crucial that if any doubt is created as to the source

of the exhibits or that there was a break in the chain of handling, then the evidential value of

such exhibits may be challenged by objection to their tendering.

Where there is a need for a forensic examinations or analysis of both the exhibit and the

specimen samples, the exhibits and samples must be sealed packed separately labeled and

submitted to the expert with relevant investigation on PF 17. The expert’s opinion will be

returned inform of expert report.

The exhibit store keeper must a company the exhibit to court, whether he is summoned or not

and must avail it to the prosecution early enough for the witness inspect it and be sure it is the

one.

45 (1974) HCB 176

lOMoAR cPSD|38090265

17

Tendering of exhibits in court

There are rules to be observed in tendering exhibits but these rules differ depending on type of

exhibit one is tendering.

In our facts above, we have a private document known as a gun license and other material

exhibit such as caska pistol and a rhino horn.

How the exhibits recovered at the seen will be used at the trial

First is to mark the exhibit, the prosecution must have a court reporter market the exhibit, real

or demonstrative for purposes of identification. Each exhibit must be given a number either a

straight number e.g. 001 or letter prefix number indication prosecution (P) or defendant (D)

plus a number e.g. Pool, use stick-on labels or a pen or a permanent making device or a
numbering machine to stamp on the number. Always keep documents or alterable (changeable

fungible) evidence in pristine condition.

Tendering the exhibit; tender the exhibit to the opposition. Have the record reflect that you

have made the tender e.g. “let the record that I am tendering what is been market as pool to

defence counsel.

Qualify the witness – show by question and answer how this witness is able to know enough

about the exhibit to be able to answer the foundation (predicate) questions.

Establish the evidentiary foundation – identify the exhibit and establish the evidentiary

foundation for its admission as real evidence or for use as a demonstrative aid to testimony.

Offer the real evidence exhibit into evidence; if the evidence is real evidence, offer it as

evidence, it should always be offered not moved, admitted or submitted for example in our case

the horn and caska pistol

Proffer the exhibit to the court if the judge so desires

Deal with opposing counsels objections respond to an improper objection made by the

opposing counsel, provided that the court has given you permission to respond.

Obtain a ruling from the court- make sure that the trial judge has orally ruled on your offer

either receiving or excluding the real exhibit or permitting or denying the use, display,

exhibition of a demonstrative aid to testimony. If the trial judge excludes your exhibit, make

lOMoAR cPSD|38090265

18

an offer of proof, if necessary and be sure that the excluded exhibit becomes part of the

appellant record.

Keep track of the foundations for your exhibits and the status of your exhibits and the

opposition’s on an exhibit list, make yourself an exhibit foundation worksheet, an exhibit list,

and exhibit chart.

Re-offer all of your real exhibits at the conclusion of your case, keep track of the status of

your exhibits and the oppositions one an exhibit list. The re-offer of all your exhibits is a safety

not to ensure that all your exhibits have been received and are part of the evidence available to

the court during deliberations refer to their usefulness in your submissions.

but they should be handled with care with by the investigating officers and storekeeper where

it is kept until it is tendered in by the prosecution to court whereby the chain of handling of

exhibits must not be broken as fully discussed above.

In conclusion, the examination of witnesses in Uganda is a critical process in the judicial

system, governed by the Evidence Act and other relevant statutes. It involves a structured

sequence of examination-in-chief, cross-examination, and re-examination to elicit truthful and

relevant information from witnesses.

lOMoAR cPSD|38090265

19

REFERENCES

The Evidence Act Cap 8

Criminal procedure and practice (prosecutor’s hand book) by Ayebare Tumwebaze

Criminal procedure and practice by M. Ssekaana

Magistrate Court Act Cap 16

Criminal Procedure Code Act Cap 116

Police Act