<p class="ql-align-justify">JUDGMENT OF THE COURT</p><p class="ql-align-justify">It is now well established that in a case depending exclusively upon circumstantial evidence the court must, before deciding upon a conviction, find that the inculpatory facts are incompatible with the innocence of the accused and incapable of explanation upon any other hypothesis than the guilt; see <em>Simoni Musoke v. R</em> [1958] EA 715 where the following extract from <em>Teper v. R</em> [1952] AC 480, 489, was quoted at page 719:</p><p class="ql-align-justify"><em>“It is also necessary before drawing the inference of the accused’s guilt from circumstantial evidence to be sure that there are no other co-existing circumstances which would weaken or destroy the inference”.</em></p><p class="ql-align-justify">The learned trial Judge having held that the case against the appellant must be decided on circumstantial evidence the main question then that arises in this appeal is whether the evidence adduced by the prosecution against the appellant during her trial was such as to be explained only upon the hypothesis of the appellant’s guilt and incompatib…</p>