Uganda v Katunakukye Bensious

FINAL SUBMISSIONS

The Accused stands charged in Count one with Threatening Violence c/s 81 (a) of the PCA, and in Count
2 with Malicious Damage to property c/s 335(1)of PCA.

BRIEF FACTS

On the 11/07/2022, at Kagorora II Cell in Ntungamo District, the Accused (Katunakukye Bensious) went
with a panga to the banana plantation of the complainant (Kyohirwe Joventa) and cut down her banana
plantations while threatening to kill her if she does not give him the land. On the 21/07/2022, again the
Accused went with a panga and cut down the complainant’s coffee plantations and when the
complainant went there the Accused threatened to kill her if she does not give him the land.

INGREDIENTS OF THE OFFENCE:

COUNT 1: THREATENING VIOLENCE

Under section 81 (a) of The Penal Code Act, the offence is committed by any person who with intent to
intimidate or annoy any person, threatens to injure, assault, shoot or kill any person, or to burn, break or
injure any property. Mere words are not enough; it is constituted by utterances coupled with actions
causing imminent threat of harm (see Mugyenyi James v. Uganda [1974] H.C.B 83 and Uganda v.
Racham Daniel [1977] 52). There must be a threat to assault coupled with intention to intimidate (see
Ofwono Benedicto v. Uganda[1977] H.C.B 210). It must be shown that words were uttered or that at
least there were gestures made that could clearly be interpreted as a threat (see Uganda v. Onyabo
Stephen and three others [1979]H.C.B39). The intention to intimidate may be gathered from the
utterances, conduct, and surrounding circumstances (see Uganda v. No.39 PC Lochoro [1982] H.C.B. 80).

Therefore prosecution will prove each of the following essential ingredients of the offence of
Threatening Violence C/s 81 (a) of The Penal Code Act;

1. Words or conduct that threatened another.

2. The words or conduct were expressed with intent to intimidate.
3. The accused uttered such words or engaged in such conduct.

COUNT2: MALICIOUS DAMAGE TO PROPERTY.

Under Section 335(1) of the Penal Code Act, the offence Malicious damage to property is committed by
any person who wilfully and unlawfully destroys and damages any property belonging to another.

According to the case of Asega & 4 Ors Vs Uganda, H.C. Crim. Appeal No. 48 of 2011, the ingredients of
the offence of Malicious Damage to Property are as follows:

(i) Destroying or causing damage to property

(ii) The property belongs to the Complainant or other person
(iii) The destruction or damage is done maliciously, wilfully or unlawfully
(iv) Identification evidence confirming the participation of the Accused in the incident
(v) The Accused does not have a legitimate defence or legal justification for his or her actions
Counsel argued that the phrase Maliciously, Wilfully or Unlawfully in S.335(1) signifies intention or mens
rea that the accused person destroyed or damaged the property in issue intentionally without any claim
of right or legal justification;

Muhwezi Jackson Vs Uganda, H.C. Crim. Appeal No. 10 of 2008.

All that has to be proved in that a wrongful act was done, without cause or excuse. Mere knowledge that
it is likely to cause wrongful loss to owner of the property is sufficient”.

See also Regina Vs Pembliton [1874-80] ALL ER. 1163 The trial Magistrate upon properly directing himself
on the law, at para 5 of the Judgment proceeded to convict the Appellants as follows:

“The Accused(s) indeed sprayed the Complainant’s garden (cassava) as was testified to by Pw2.There was
no evidence of a legal justification for such conduct. The Prosecution therefore proved beyond
reasonable doubt that the destruction was done wilfully and unlawfully.
I therefore find that the Prosecution proved its case to the required standard. It proved that the accused
wilfully and without any justification sprayed and destroyed the cassava garden of the Complainant.