his Advocate did not state that they would rely on the defence of alibi. The Advocate only informed the court that he intended to put the Applicant on the stand and nobody else.”37 97. The Respondent State avers that the rationale behind submitting a notice of a defence of alibi is to enable the prosecution to investigate such defence, to get to the truth of the allegations and to provide the prosecution with ample time to ascertain the whereabouts of an accused if he claims he was elsewhere and not at the crime scene. It avers that the prosecution closed its case on 17 February 2014 and the Applicant proceeded with his defence. It is only then that he informed the Court that he was at Kigarama Village on the day of the incident and that he intended to summon one witness who was admitted at a hospital.38 The Respondent State disputes the Applicant’s arguments that he was at Kigarama village on 17 January 2010, when the crime occurred because this was an afterthought. In any case, the Applicant was required to call a witness to prove where he was on the day the crime occurred. It is for these reasons that the allegations should be dismissed for lack of merit. *** 98. The Court observes that the issue raised regarding the Court’s failure to consider the Applicants defence of alibi relates to the right to have one’s cause heard under Article 7 of the Charter, which provides that: “Every individual shall have the right to have his cause heard. This comprises: c. The right to defence, including the right to be defended by counsel of his choice;” 99. The Court has previously held in the Abubakari case cited earlier, that an alibi is an important element of evidence for one’s defence, which should be 37 38 At page 7/8 of the Court of Appeal Record. At page 49 and 50 of the Court of Appeal Record. 28