The High court has ruled that city socialite Charles Olimu aka Sipapa, and his wife, Shamira Namuyimba, have a case to answer over the alleged aggravated robbery of $429,000 (about Shs 1.6 billion) and money laundering.
Criminal Division judge Michael Elubu on Tuesday directed the two accused persons to enter their defence after finding that the prosecution had presented sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case against them.
The prosecution alleges that on the night of August 29, 2022, Sipapa, Namuyimba and others still at large broke into the home of South Sudanese businessman Jacob Arok Mul in Bunga-Kawuku, Makindye Division, Kampala.
The attackers allegedly rendered the occupants unconscious using a substance identified in the indictment as brallobarbital before stealing $429,000, home electronics, mobile phones and gold jewellery.
Sipapa and Namuyimba have been on remand at Luzira Prison since September 2022. They are scheduled to begin their defence between October 12 and 19, 2026. Sipapa is separately facing six counts of money laundering, two of which he is jointly charged with Namuyimba.
The prosecution alleges that proceeds of the robbery were concealed or disguised by converting them into assets, including musical equipment purchased from Hong Kong, electronics and motor vehicles.
The court heard that after the robbery was reported, police activated the “Find My Phone” application on some of the stolen devices. The tracking information allegedly led investigators to a house on Kityo Close in Buwate, Kira Division, where Sipapa and Namuyimba lived.
Police searched the house in Namuyimba’s presence and, according to the prosecution, recovered some of the stolen laptops and phones, along with cash and several motor vehicles.
The prosecution also presented fingerprint evidence which it said linked Sipapa to an envelope recovered from the robbery scene.
Sipapa was not at the house when the search was conducted but was later arrested, while Namuyimba was arrested immediately after the search. The prosecution, led by chief state attorney Edward Muhumuza and senior state attorney Timothy Amerit, called 23 witnesses before closing its case.
The evidence included allegations that two vehicles found at the couple’s home had been resprayed, while vehicle parts, number plates and other accessories were recovered from the compound.
The prosecution alleges that the respraying of the vehicles and removal of identifying stickers were intended to conceal their ownership and source. The couple denied the charges after the case was committed to the High court by the Makindye Chief Magistrate’s court, which lacked jurisdiction to try the offences.
After the prosecution closed its case, the defence and prosecution left it to the court to determine whether the evidence was sufficient to require the accused to mount a defence.
In his ruling, Justice Elubu considered the legal test for establishing a prima facie case, citing the East African Court of Appeal decision in Ramanlal T. Bhatt v Republic and a subsequent Court of Appeal decision in the Kato Kajubi case.
The judge stressed that a finding of a prima facie case does not amount to a finding of guilt. Rather, he said, it means there is evidence upon which a properly directed court could convict if the accused persons offered no explanation.
Justice Elubu said he had examined the law governing aggravated robbery and money laundering and assessed the prosecution evidence against the elements of the offences.
He concluded that the prosecution had established a prima facie case against both accused persons.
The judge consequently invoked Section 74(2) of the Trial on Indictments Act, which requires an accused person to enter a defence where the court finds sufficient evidence that the accused committed the offence.
“Accordingly, both accused persons are called upon to enter their defence,” Justice Elubu ruled.