The Appellants were jointly arraigned for the armed robbery of inter alia, a motor vehicle which was alleged to belong to a certain Melance Kisoka. In the alternative, the second Appellant alone was arraigned for receiving the allegedly stolen motor vehicle. In the course of the trial, the prosecution featured a police witness who eventually sought to adduce into evidence an inspection report with respect to the vehicle. The attempt was successfully resisted by counsel for the Appellants on account that the witness was not legally authorized to compile the inspection report. At the end of the trial the Appellants were acquitted.
Dissatisfied, the Respondent DPP successfully appealed to the High Court which allowed the appeal and quashed the acquittal of the Appellants. It was further ordered that a new trial should be commenced before another Magistrate of competent jurisdiction. Dissatisfied, the Appellants appealed to the Court of Appeal.