SECTION A

Question 1(a)

Brief facts

The prosecution's case involves the death of Mary Achieng's husband, Ajubule, and
subsequent threats from his tribesmen. Achieng sought protection from her relatives, but on
the night of January 7th, 2023, assailants, including Ajubule's brothers, attacked Achieng and
her family, resulting in severe injuries and the eventual death of James Kalenzi on September
7th, 2023.

Issue

Whether there are any offences disclosed in the case

Based on the provided facts, several offenses can be identified:

Murder contrary to section 188 and 189 of the Penal Code Act: The assailants' actions
resulted in the death of James Kalenzi. Murder is defined as the unlawful killing of another
person with malice aforethought. The attackers' deliberate assault on Achieng and her
relatives, resulting in James Kalenzi's death, constitutes murder.

Attempted Murder contrary to section 204 of the Penal Code Act: The assault on Achieng
and her relatives with sticks and pangas indicates an intention to kill. While James Kalenzi
succumbed to his injuries, the others survived, making this an attempted murder in their
cases.

Assault occasioning bodily harm contrary to section 236 : The attackers assaulted Achieng
and her relatives using sticks and pangas, causing them grievous bodily harm. This
constitutes assault, which involves the intentional application of force to another person
without their consent.

Housebreaking with Intent to Commit a Felony contrary to section294 and 95 of the Penal
Code Act : The intruders forcibly entered Achieng's house, breaking the door in the process.
This act with the intent to commit a felony (assault or murder) inside the house constitutes
housebreaking with intent to commit a felony.

Question 1(b)
Now, let's discuss the principle of legality, burden, and standard of proof:

Principle of Legality: This principle states that there can be no crime or punishment except
in accordance with existing law. It ensures that individuals are not subjected to arbitrary or
retroactive punishment. In this case, the principle of legality requires that the offenses
committed by the attackers must be clearly defined and established by law. The prosecution
must prove that the accused committed specific offenses recognized by law, such as murder,
attempted murder, and assault.

Burden of Proof: In criminal cases, the burden of proof rests on the prosecution to prove the
guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. This means that the prosecution must present
sufficient evidence to convince the court that the accused committed the alleged offenses. In
this case, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants
committed murder, attempted murder, assault, and housebreaking with intent to commit a
felony.

Standard of Proof: The standard of proof required in criminal cases is beyond a reasonable
doubt. This standard is higher than the preponderance of evidence standard used in civil
cases. It means that there should be no reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors or judge
that the accused committed the offenses charged. The prosecution must present evidence that
is strong enough to eliminate any reasonable doubt about the guilt of the accused.

In summary, the prosecution must establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable
doubt for the offenses of murder, attempted murder, assault, and housebreaking with intent to
commit a felony, in accordance with the principle of legality, burden of proof, and standard
of proof.

Question 2

Brief facts

Philip Kamuntu's daughter Sarah aged 19 years old, engages in a controversial relationship
with Robert Matsiko, prompting her father to hire Isaac, Jeremy, and Peter to terminate it.
Joseph, a special hire driver, aids in the crime by providing transportation. Robert is fatally
stabbed by the trio, leading to their escape from the scene.

Issues
Whether there were any crime committed, and if so who are the parties and their
responsibility

The law applicable

The constitution of Uganda 1995 as amended

The Penal code Act Cap 120

The case law

Resolutions

Parties and Criminal Responsibility:

Philip Kamuntu: He is the instigator of the crime, soliciting others to commit murder. Under
Ugandan law, he could be charged with conspiracy to commit murder (Section 390 of the
Penal Code Act) and could face imprisonment upon conviction.

Isaac, Jeremy, and Peter: They are the principal offenders who physically carry out the
murder. They would be charged with murder under Section 188 and 189 of the Penal Code
Act, which carries a maximum penalty of death upon conviction.

Joseph: He aids and abets the commission of the murder by driving the perpetrators to the
scene and keeping watch. Joseph could be charged with aiding and abetting murder under
Section 25 (1) (c) of the Penal Code Act, which is punishable with imprisonment upon
conviction.

Sarah Kamuntu: Although not directly involved in the commission of the crime, her
relationship with Robert Matsiko played a central role in the motive behind the murder.
However, based on the facts provided, she does not appear to have any direct criminal
responsibility.

In conclusion, the above shows the crimes committed, parties who did commit such offences,
their liability or responsibility and which law was violated

SECTION B

Question Four

With aid of relevant authorities and statutory provisions discuss at least 6 major
offences against property under the Penal Code Act Cap 120.
Property is something that one or more people own and have the exclusive right to possess
and use it, as well as the right to transfer it. 1 In their book Criminal Law, Catherine Elliot and
Frances Quinn defined property as ''all a person's legal rights of whatever description. A
man's property is what he owns legally.2

To the Black’s Law Dictionary, the categories of property may include; Types of property
include; absolute property, adjoining, adventitious, after-acquired, appointive, captioned,
complete, corporeal, distressed, divisible, domestic partnership, industrial, tangible and
intangible among others.3

The constitution of Uganda says that` `A person has right to hold property either individually
or in combination with another”, The constitution also protects from deprivation of property.
Hence creating the following offences

Theft

As per section 254 of the Penal Code Act, the word theft is defined as where a person
fraudulently and without claim of right takes anything capable of being stolen, or fraudulently
converts to the use of any person other than the general or special owner thereof anything
capable of being stolen.

The Penal Code of Uganda provides for things capable of being stolen to include; every
inanimate movable thing owned by another, every tame animal by nature or wild owned by
another, wild and rare, everything produced from animal parts. However, for an act to be
considered theft, it must fulfill the following conditions, which are referred to as the
ingredients of theft;

In Uganda V Ndyabahika and Byaruhanga Ronald HCT-04-CR-SC-272-2013. 4 the accused

were charged for stealing a vehicle contrary to 254 and 256 of the Penal code acts. PW1-PW9
gave evidence that the accused drove the vehicle away, they had seen him for 3 minutes
which was ample time for identification.

The object must have ownership for the actus reus to be recognized.

In otherwards, it must be in line with 253 of the Penal Code Act. The position was held in
the case of R V Marshal where the court found that, the Appellant obtained used tickets and
1
William L Burdick, Handbook of the law of Real Property page 2-3
2
Elliot C Quinn F Criminal Law 10th Edition 0f 2014 page 213
3
Black’s Law Dictionary 11th Edition
4
HCT-04-CR-SC-272-2013
resold and consequently was convicted of theft. His appeal against the decision was
dismissed, it was held that the tickets remained company property, thus remained owners.

The accused must have acted dishonestly with the intention to permanently deprive the
general or special owner of the thing.

In Uganda Ndyabahika and Anor supra, the Resident State Attorney argued that the car
owner's intention to permanently deprive them of its use was justified, as the car was never
returned until court proceedings.

The general punishment for theft is imprisonment not exceeding 10 years, with an honest
claim of right as a possible defense.

Robbery

Aggravated theft involves stealing and using or threatening violence to obtain or retain stolen
property, committing a felony called robbery. Deadly weapons, such as shooting, stabbing, or
cutting, are weapons likely to cause death or serious harm.

However, the accused must; (I) use force to steal (ii) or put the person in fear of force in order
to steal (iii) or seek to put the person in fear of force in order to steal. The major ingredient of
robbery however is force. The penal code act does not define force or what amount of it is
required to fulfill the ingredient.

In Uganda V Waiswa and Anor Criminal Session No. 240 of 2010, in this case the accused
persons were charged for robbing; ugsh260,0000, 2radios, bicycle, 2 pairs of bedsheets,
blanket, bag, Nokia phone, pair of open shoes and other items valued at ugsh700,000 while
armed with deadly weapons, pangas and clubs. The prosecution had to prove that; (I)
there was a theft (ii) threat or use of violence (iii) assailants were armed with deadly weapons
(iv) the accused participated.5

The defendant's threat of force must occur immediately, not in the future, and a person is
liable for the full offense, regardless of whether they were brave or not.

Burglary

The offence of Burglary is sometimes referred to as breaking and entering, provided for in the
penal code act section 294 and 295, that person who breaks any part of a building, whether
external or internal, or opens by unlocking, pulling, pushing, lifting or any other means any
5
Uganda V Waiswa and Anor Criminal Session No. 240 of 2010
door, window, shutter, cellar flap or other thing, intended to close or cover an opening in a
building, or an opening giving passage from one part of a building to another, is deemed to
break the building.

Therefore, the essential ingredients of burglary are; (I) Breaking and entering (ii)
into a dwelling house (iii) with intent to commit a felony.

Effective entry was clarified in R v Brown. 6 where the appellant was found partially inside a
shop front display. He appealed on ground that his whole body was not inside the shop, thus
he had not entered. Appeal was dismissed that the word ``enter” did not require the whole of
the accused’s body be within the building. The penal code also provides that; a person is
deemed to enter a building as soon as any part of his or her body or any part of any
instrument used by him or her is within the building.7

The intent must be to commit a felony, which may be murder, rape, arson, robbery, as the
penal code act may prescribe. If the accused sets up an honest claim of right to enter, it will
be for the prosecution to prove that the belief was not held.8

Obtaining by false Pretence

The offence is under section 304 and 305 where it is defined as the making of a
representation that a certain state of affairs exists, by either conduct or spoken words which
the maker knows to be false or does not believe to be true.

The ingredients include;

(I) Subject matter, only things capable of being stolen can be obtained by false
pretence. Land and other intangible objects such as a job cannot be stolen thus not a subject
to false preteens.

(ii) Obtaining, the accused must have obtained the object with intent to defraud.

(iii) Pretence, a representation made by words, writing or conduct of a matter of fact and
which the person who makes it knows to be false or believes not to be true.

The case of R v Jennison (1862)41, established the position of the law of obtaining property
by false pretence, in this case, the defendant induced a woman by not only promising

6
R v Brown [1985] Crim LR 212
7
The Penal Code Act Section 292(2)
8
Hogan and Smith on Criminal Law 14th Edition.
marriage but also presenting to be single; yet married. It was held that he had been rightly
convicted of obtaining the woman’s money by false pretence.9

Receiving Stolen Property contrary to section 314 of the Penal Code Act

Section 314 of the Penal Code Act states, “Any person who receives or retains any chattel,
money, valuable security or other property, knowing or having reason to believe the same to
have been feloniously stolen, taken, extorted, obtained or disposed of, commits a felony and
is liable to imprisonment for fourteen years” Therefore, if an individual accepts possession of
goods or property and knows they were stolen, then the individual can typically be charged
and convicted.

In the case of Katumba John Bosco & Anor v Uganda 10, the Supreme Court established a link
between a robbery and the appellants after no witnesses could identify the robbers. Local
Council officials and police sergeant Daniel Chemung's arrested two suspects hiding in a
banana plantation. The appellants led the team to their homes, where stolen property was
found. The victims in Balinda village were able to identify all the recovered property as
theirs. The charges of robbery were based on recent possession of stolen property.

Smuggling and being in possession of Smuggled goods

Any person who exports or imports any goods from or into Uganda without license44 or
deceives any authorized officer commits the offence of smuggling45. In Nassanga Eliva v
Uganda Criminal Appeal No. 59 of 2007, where the Magistrate Court convicted the appellant
for the smuggling of cigarettes and being in possession of goods reasonably believed to have
been smuggled.

Therefore, to conclude, in Uganda, there are many offences relating to property are so many
as prescribed in the penal code act, others include; arson, removing boundary marks, forgery
among others.

Question Six

As taught in a class of Foundation to criminal law, the doctrine arising in the facts. Being an
accident on the road caused by a driver known as Ssebaka, and instead of suing Ssebaka, the
company. This leads to two doctrines as follows,

9
R v Jennison (1862)41
10
Katumba John Bosco & Anor v Uganda Criminal Appeal No. 43 of 1999,
 1. Causing an accident on the road by the COMPANY’s lorry gives both to strict
liability offence
2. Suing the COMPANY instead of the driver, gives rise to vicarious liability offences.

Therefore there are two doctrines, the doctrine of strict liability offence, and the doctrine of
vicarious liability.

According to Richard Card & Jill Molly at page 120. An offence is one of strict liability if
the mensrea is not required in respect of one or more elements of the actus Reus of that
offence.11 Criminal law classifies strict liability offences as those which do not require
establishment of mental elements whether “acting knowingly,” “acting purposely,” “acting
with recklessness,” and “acting with negligence”.
Looking into the facts of the case, there was the lorry’s door swinging, this is a careless,
reckless and negligent act. But as stated there is no need to bother ourselves about how the
act was. The only issue is Ssebaka caused accident on the road, Mufasa the plaintiff has been
injured, hence committing an offence of strict liability.

In the case of Uganda v Dr Richard & Others. 12 it was stated that except for cases of strict
liability, the criminal law justice system requires that besides the act, actus reus, there must
be a guilty mind that is mens rea. Usually, strict liability is to be found in legislation dealing
with matters such as road traffic offences, health and safety, pollution control, possession of
dangerous articles such as weapons and drugs and currency offences.

For example as per the facts, it squarely falls under the Traffic and Road Safety Act

As inferred from the word of the statute itself, in the case Uganda v Okumu John Bismark
& Anor.13 In the case of appellant was charged with causing death by reckless driving. In this
case, there was no need of proof of the driver’s intention contrary to Traffic and Road Safety
Act. The ingredient of death caused by reckless use of the vehicle did not include intention to
cause death that is; death of a human being, the death was caused by motor vehicle, the
motor vehicle was being driven carelessly, and lastly the accused was driving the motor
vehicle at the material time. This clearly show that there is no need to prove the intention of
the accused in regards to all Traffic and Road offences, hence its applicability.

11
Criminal Law 22nd Edition by Richard Card & Jill Molly at page 120.

12
Uganda v Dr Richard & Others.CR SC 003 of 2010
13
Uganda v Okumu John Bismark & Anor Criminal Appeal No. 0002
Therefore as the case above explains, there will be no need to argue that the driver never
intended to cause the accident, the mens Reus needs not need to be proved. Hence he and the
company are liable for the accident, leading to the discussion on the doctrine of vicarious
liability.

The doctrine of vicarious liability

In the case of Paul Byekwaso v Attorney General CA No. 10 of 2002 14, where it was held that
a master is liable for the tortious act s committed b his servant in the course of his
employment.

In the case of Muwonge v Attorney General [1967] EA 17 15, The court held that an act may
be done in the course of employment so as to make him liable even though it is done to the
contrary of the order of the master, that even if the servant is acting deliberately, wantonly,
negligently or criminally or for his own behalf, nevertheless if what he did is merely a
manner of carrying out what he was employed to carryout, then his master is liable

Therefore suing the company meant application of the doctrine of vicarious liability was in
force, the driver known as Ssebaka, was an employee to the Chiko Co. Ltd, the accident he
caused was during the time of his employment as he was driving the company’s lorry, and
therefore was performing the company’s duty. With this, the company is vicariously liable
and it’s a reason behind the suit against the company. Hence the doctrine of vicarious
liability.

Question 6(b)

The following could be the possible defenses available for the defendant;

Contributory negligence from the plaintiff, he may argue that the plaintiff contributing to his
accident on the road because he failed to exercise reasonable care for his own safety on the
road, that the plaintiff was walking close to the lorry and failed to pay attention to his
surroundings.

Act of the third party, the defendant could argue that it was not the company’s fault for the
door which was left swinging, that it was mistake of someone else in fact could be the
mechanic who probably did not work well on the door, or even that it was unforeseeable that
such could happen.

14
Paul Byekwaso v Attorney General CA No. 10 of 2002
15
Muwonge v Attorney General [1967] EA 17
REFERENCES

The Laws applied

The Constitution of Uganda 1995 as amended

The Penal Code Act Cap 120

Case laws

Katumba John Bosco & Anor v Uganda Criminal Appeal No. 43 of 1999

Uganda V Ndyabahika and Byaruhanga Ronald HCT-04-CR-SC-272-2013

Uganda V Waiswa and Anor Criminal Session No. 240 of 2010

R v Dawson and James [1976] 64 Cr App R 150

R v Brown [1985] Crim LR 212

R v Jennison (1862)41.

The Text Books

William L Burdick, Handbook of the law of Real Property page 2-3

Elliot C Quinn F Criminal Law 10th Edition 0f 2014 page 213

Black’s Law Dictionary 11th Edition