CRIMINAL LIABILITY

1. INTRODUCTION

2. OFFENCES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER

1) Treason Sec 23

Treason refers to the offences levied against the state.

Instances/circumstances

 Any person who levies war against the Republic of Uganda.

 Unlawfully causes or attempts to cause the death of the president or unlawfully wounds him

or aims a gun at him.

 Plots to overthrow the government in the case of Uganda V Hamisi & Moses Ali.

 Aids and abets another person to carry out such acts commits an offence of treason and shall

suffer death in the case of R V Ndamungu (1940) EACA 6.

 That it was the accused who was responsible for the offence.

2) Terrorism

These are acts or offences committed by people or a person against the other where

government’s concern is drawn or public service affected for a political, religious, social or

economic aim, indiscriminately without due regard to the safety of others or property sec 7 (2) of

the Anti-Terrorism Act.

Instances/circumstances
o Intentionally and unlawfully manufactures, delivers, place, discharge or detonation of an

explosive or other lethal device whether attempted or actual into or against a place of public

use.

o Direct involvement in the murdering, kidnapping, attack or maiming whether attempted or

threatened, on a person or groups of persons in public or private institutions.

o Direct involvement in abducting, maiming or attack on the person, official premises, private

accommodation or means of transport.

o Intentionally and unlawfully provision or collection of funds, whether attempted or actual,

with intention or knowledge that any part of the funds may be used to carry out any of the

terrorists activities.

o Direct involvement in the seizure or detention of and threat to kill, injure or continue to

detain a hostage whether actual or attempted in order to compel a state to do or abstain from

doing any act as an explicit or implicit condition for the release of hostage.

o Unlawful seizure of an aircraft or public transport or the hijacking of passengers or groups of

persons for ransom.

o Serious interference with or disruption of an electronic system.

o Unlawful importation, sale, making, manufacture or distribution of any firearms, explosives,

ammunition or bombs.

o Intentional development or production or use of or complicity in the development or

production or use of a biological weapon.

o Unlawful possession of explosives, ammunition, bombs or any material for making of any of

the foregoing.

3) Misprision of treason Sec 25

 Any person who knowing that any person intends to commit treason does not give

information thereof with all reasonable dispatch to the Minister, an administrative officer, a

Magistrate or an officer in charge of a police station, or use all reasonable endeavors to prevent

the commission of the offence of treason commits the offence of misprision of treason and is

liable on conviction to imprisonment for life.

3. OFFENCES AGAINST MORALITY

a) Rape Sec 123-125

Any person who has unlawful carnal knowledge of a woman or girl, without her consent, or

with her consent, if the consent is obtained by force or by means of threats or intimidation of any

kind or by fear of bodily harm or by means of false representations as to the nature of the act, or

in the case of married woman, by personating her husband, commits the felony termed rape.

The punishment for rape is death under Sec 124 of the Penal Code Act cap 120.

Ingredients

 Carnal knowledge/penetration of the female sex organ by the male sex organ in the case of

Oyeki Charles V Uganda Criminal Appeal No.126/1999, court of Appeal.

 Penetration of a woman or girl by a man or boy in the case of Katumba James V Uganda

Criminal Appeal No.58/1997, court of Appeal.

 Carnal knowledge must be unlawful or without the consent of the female partner in the case

of DPP V Morgan & 3 others (1976) AC 182, House of Lords.

 That it was the accused who was responsible for the act or offence in the case of Kayondo

Robert V Uganda Criminal Appeal No.18/1996, court of Appeal.

b) Simple defilement Sec 129 (1)

Any person who performs a sexual act with another person who is below the age of 18 years

commits a felony known as defilement and is on conviction liable to life imprisonment.

Ingredients

The girl must be below the age of 18 years in the case of Katima John V Uganda Criminal

Appeal No.23/1999.

There must be sexual intercourse in the case of Bassita Hussein V Uganda Criminal Appeal

No.35/1995.

Participation of the accused in the alleged sexual intercourse in the case of Agaya Robert V

Uganda Criminal Appeal No.18/2000.

c) Aggravated defilement Sec 129 (3)

Any person who performs a sexual act with another person below the age of 18 years in any

of the following circumstances under sec 129(4) commits a felony termed aggravated defilement

and is, on conviction by the High Court, liable to suffer death.

Ingredients Sec 129 (4)

 Where the person against whom the offence is committed is below the age of fourteen years

in the case of Badru Mwidu V Uganda Criminal Appeal No.01/1997.

 Where the offender is infected with HIV/AIDS.

 Where the offender is a parent or guardian of or a person in authority over, the person against

whom the offence is committed.

 Where the victim of the offence is a person with disability.

 Where the offender is a serial offender.

 Participation of the accused in such act in the case of Uganda V Mugisha Criminal Session

Case No.69/1999. High Court

d) Adultery Sec 154 (1)

Any man who has sexual intercourse with any married woman not being his wife commits

adultery and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding twelve months or to a fine not

exceeding 200/= and in addition the court shall order any such man on 1 st conviction to pay the

aggrieved party compensation of 600/=, and on a subsequent conviction compensation not

exceeding 1200/= as may be so ordered.

e) Incest Sec 149 (1)

Any person who has sexual intercourse with another person with whom, to his or her

knowledge that they are relatives commits an offence termed as incest and is liable to

imprisonment for seven years or if that other person is under the age of 18 years to imprisonment

for life.

Ingredients

 That sexual intercourse took place.

 That the parties fall within one of the prohibited relationships under Sec 149 (1) of the Penal

Code Act Cap 120.

 That the party had knowledge that his/her sexual partner was related to him/her in the case of

Barugahara V Uganda (1969) EA High Court.

4. OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON

 I. Manslaughter Sec 187 (1).

Any person who by an unlawful act or omission causes the death of another person commits

the felony termed manslaughter; he/she is liable to imprisonment for life under Sec 190 of the

Penal Code Act Cap 120.

Ingredient

 Causes the death of another in the case of R V Sultan Maghinga.

 The death was unlawful in the case of R V Kinene (1996) EACA 8.

 The death occurred within a year and a day in the case of Church V R (1965) 1 All ER.

 That it was the accused that was responsible for the offence/death committed in the case of R

V Alayina (1957) R & N 536.

Categories of voluntary manslaughter

 Killing under provocation Sec 192 of the PCA.

 Suicide pacts Sec 195 of the PCA.

 Infanticide Sec 213 of the PCA.

Categories of involuntary manslaughter

o Causing death by unlawful act or omission Sec 187 (1) PCA and in the case of Bukenya V

Uganda.

o Intoxication may negative the malice aforethought in the case of Malunga S/O Kieti V R.

o The use of excessive force in the case of R V Abdu Muherwa.

o Absence of common intention in the case of Andrews V DPP (1937)2 All ER 552.

II. Murder Sec 188 and 189.

 Any person who of malice aforethought causes the death of another person by an unlawful

act or omission commits murder and shall suffer death.

Ingredients

 That the victim was a human being.

 That the death occurred in the case of Uganda V Kassim Obura & Anor (1981) HCB 9.

 That the killing was unlawful and with malice aforethought in the case of Uganda V John

Ochieng (1992-3) HCB 80.

 That the accused was responsible for the offence committed in the case of Stephens &

Dudley V R.

III. Attempted murder Sec 204

Any person who attempts unlawfully to cause the death of another commits an offence

termed as an attempted murder and is liable on conviction to imprisonment for life.

Ingredients

That the victim is a human being.

That death did not occur.

That the attempt to cause death was unlawful or with malice aforethought in the case of Sam

Lutaya V Uganda Criminal Appeal No.10/1986, Supreme Court.

That it was the accused who was responsible for the offence.

IV. Common Assaults Sec 235

 Any person who unlawfully assaults another commits a misdemeanor, and, if the assault is

not committed in circumstances for which a greater punishment is provided in this code, is liable

to imprisonment for one year.

Ingredients/circumstances

 Threatening Words said by someone in the case of Wilson (1955) 1 All ER 744.

 Threatening action without words in the case of Stephen V Meyer (1830) 4 C & P 349.

 Intention to cause fear or hurt in the case of R V George (1840) 9 C & P 483.

 Threats must be of immediate violence in the case of Smith V Chief Superintendant,

Working Police Station (1983) 76 Criminal App Rep 234.

 Assault must be unlawful before it constitutes an offence under Sec 227 of PCA and in the

case of Uganda V Abdu Bamuru Criminal Revision No.330/1971.

 That the accused was responsible for the offence committed.

 5. OFFENCES RELATING TO PROPERTY

(i) Theft Sec 254 (1)

A person who 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, is said to steal that thing.

Ingredients

 Fraudulent Sec 254 (2)

 An intent permanently to deprive the general or special owner of the thing of it in the case of

R V Eason (1971)2 All ER 945.

 Intent to use the thing as a pledge or security.

 Intent to part with it on a condition as to its return which the person taking or converting it

may be unable to perform.

 Intent to deal with it in such a manner that it cannot be returned in the condition in which it

was at the time taking or conversion in R V Bailey (1924) QNN.

 In the case of money, an intent to use it at the will of the person who takes or converts it,

although he or she may intend afterwards to replay the amount to the owner in the case of

Kizito Ronald V Uganda Criminal Appeal High Court.

 Claim of right i.e. where he honestly asserts what he believes to be a lawful claim even

though it is unfounded in law or fact in the case of Ngavana V R (1972) EA 559.

 Taking i.e. carrying away or any removal of anything from the place which it occupied in the

case of Lerunyani V R (1968) EA 107.

 Things capable of being stolen e.g. animals and inanimate under Sec 253 of the Penal Code

Act Cap 120.

  Conversion: it was defined by Lord Atkins in the case of Lancashire & Yorkshire Railway

Co V Mac Nicol (1919) 88 KB 601 as dealing with goods in a manner inconsistent with the

right of the true owner provided that it is also established that there is an intention on the part

of the accused in so doing to deny the owner’s right or to assert a right which is inconsistent

with the owner’s right.

 That it was the accused who was responsible for the offence.

V. Simple Robbery Sec 285

Any person who steals anything and at or immediately before or immediately after the time

of stealing it uses or threatens to use actual violence to any person or property in order to obtain

the thing stolen or to prevent or overcome resistance to its being stolen or retained commits the

felony termed robbery.

Sec 286 of PCA any person who commits the felony of robbery is liable for ten years on

conviction by a magistrate’s court and life imprisonment on conviction by High Court.

Ingredients

o Use of violence before or at the time of stealing in the case of Teper V R (1952) 2 AC 480.

o The use of force must seek to put any person in fear and the force needs to be continuous.

o That accused was responsible for the offence.

VI. Aggravated robbery Sec 286 (2)

Where at the time or immediately before or immediately after the time of the robbery, an

offender is in possession of a deadly weapon, or causes death or grievous harm to any person, the

offender or any other person jointly concerned in committing the robbery shall, on conviction by

the High Court, be liable to suffer death.

Ingredients
  Theft of some properties in the case of Besigensi Edison V Uganda Supreme Court Criminal

Appeal No.9/2004.

 That there was use or a threat to use a deadly weapon at the time the theft was committed in

the case of Uganda V Mujuni William.

 That the accused participated in the act in the case of Uganda V Adupa Nelson & Ors.

VII. Housebreaking and Burglary Sec 295

Any person who breaks and enters any building, tent or vessel used as a human dwelling with

intent to commit a felony in it, or having entered any building, tent or vessel used as a human

dwelling with the intent to commit a felony in any such building, tent or vessel, breaks out of it,

commits the felony termed housebreaking and is liable to imprisonment for seven years and if it

is done at night, it is termed burglary, and the offender is liable to imprisonment for ten years.

Ingredients

 Time i.e. breaking and entering done during day is housebreaking (06:31-06:29pm) while at

night is burglary (06:30-6:30am) in the case of R V Ryan (1996) Criminal LR 320.

 Breaking i.e. opening a door with a key, lifts a larch, pushing or opening a closed window,

entry through a chimney and a pretence for instance sanitary inspector in the case of R V

Boyle (1954) 2 QB 292.

 Entering i.e. the accused must enter, or have entered a building in order to be guilty of

burglary. The offence is not committed where there is no entry in the case of Maselu Butiti V

R and on the other hand in the case of R V Brown (1985) Criminal LR 212.

 With the intent of committing a felony not necessarily stealing, this may be murder, arson,

rape etc in the case of Uganda V Patrick (1977) HCB 163.

  That it was the accused who was responsible for the offence in the case of R V Collins

(1973) QB 100.

VIII. False pretence Sec 304.

Any representation made by words, writing or conduct, of a matter of fact, either past or

present, which representation is false in fact, and which the person making it knows to be false or

does not believe to be true, is a false pretence and under Sec 305 of the Penal Code Act cap 120

any person who by false pretence and with intent to defraud, obtains from any person anything

capable of being stolen commits an offence and is liable to imprisonment for five years.

Ingredients

 The subject matter i.e. only things capable of being stolen can be obtained by false pretences.

 Obtaining i.e. the accused must have obtained some property by pretence and this must be

done with intent to defraud in the case of R V Rootes Kenyan Ltd Dobbs (1958) EA 13.

 Inducing delivery i.e. it covers the situation where e.g. A induces B to deliver to A himself or

to C.

 The pretence in the case of R V Jenison (1862) Le & Ca 157.

 Past or present matter i.e. the representation must refer to a matter of fact either past or

present. If it relates only to a future matter, no offence is committed in the case of R V Dent

(1955) 39 Cr. App R 131.

 Falsity of the pretence i.e. the pretence must not only be false but it must be false to the

knowledge of the matter or at least he must not believe it to be true.

 Intent i.e. the accused not only obtained something by false pretence but also that he intended

to defraud in the case of R V Abnah (1931) All NLR 635.

 Participation of the accused in the alleged act.

IX. Receiving or retaining stolen property Sec 314 (1).

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 14 years.

Ingredients

 Possession in the case of Kara V R (1971) EA 191.

 Receiving dishonestly i.e. the receiver knows that the goods he/she is receiving was stolen in

the case of R V Matthews (1950) 1 All ER 137.

 Property received in the case of David Kasule V Uganda (1966) EA 338.

 Guilt knowledge in the case of Tenywa V Uganda (1967) EA 102.

 The doctrine of recent possession i.e. this is a way of referring to the inference of the fact

which in the absence of satisfactory explanation by the accused may be shown as a matter of

common sense from the fact that he was in possession of the goods recently stolen. The

burden of proof shifts to the accused in the case of Andrea Obonyo & Anor V R (1962) EA

542.

 Conversion of stolen property in the case of D’Andrea V Woods (1953) 1 WLR 1307.

 Participation of the accused person in such acts.

6. COMPUTER RELATED OFFENCES

A. Unauthorized access Sec 12 of the computer misuse Act 2011.

 A person who intentional accesses or intercepts any program or data without authority or

permission to do so commits an offence.

 Interferes with data in a manner that causes the program to be modified, damaged, destroyed

or rendered ineffective, commits offence.

 Unlawfully produces, sells, offers to sell, procures for use, and including a computer program

commits an offence.

 Accesses any information system so as to constitute a denial including a partial denial of

service to legitimate users’ commits an offence.

B. Electronic fraud sec 19.

 A person who carries out electronic fraud commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a

fine not exceeding three hundred & sixty currency points or imprisonment not exceeding 15

years or both.

 For the purpose of this section ‘’electronic fraud’’ means deception, deliberately performed

with the intention of securing an unfair or unlawful gain where part of a communication is

sent through a computer network or any other communication & another part through the

actions of the victim of the offence or the action is performed through a computer network or

both.

C. Child pornography Sec 23.

It includes materials that depicts; a child engaged in sexually suggestive or explicit conduct,

a person appearing to be a child engaged in sexually suggestive or explicit conduct etc and is

liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding three hundred & sixty currency points or

imprisonment not exceeding 15 years or both.

Ingredients
 Produces child pornography for the purposes of distribution through computer.

 Offers or makes available child pornography through a computer.

 Distributes or transmits child pornography through a computer.

 Procures child pornography through a computer for himself or herself or another person.

 Unlawfully possesses child pornography on a computer; commits an offence.

 Makes available pornographic materials to a child commits an offence.

D. Cyber harassment Sec 24.

A person who commits cyber harassment is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding seventy

two currency points or imprisonment not exceeding 3 years or both.

Ingredients

 Making any request, suggestion or proposal which is obscene, lewd, lascivious or indecent.

 Threatening to inflict injury or physical harm to the person or property of any person.

 Knowing permits any electronic communications device to be used for any of the purposes

mentioned in this section.

7. OFFENCE RELATED TO CORRUPTION

a. Corruption Sec 2 of the Anti-Corruption Act 2009

It refers to as abuse of office or authority for personal gain. This is an act usually implying

money or gift given that alters the behavior/decision of the recipient in ways not consistent with

the duties of that person or in breach of law and the punishment for corruption is imprisonment

for ten years.

Ingredients

 Gratification in the case of R V Akbarali (1947) EACA.

 Giving or receiving in the case of Kasam V R (1972) EA 551.

 Neglect of duty.

 Receiving of money in the case of Uganda V Mukhalwe (1968) EA 373.

 Fraudulent acquisition, use or concealment of property.

 Diversion or use of a public office for purposes unrelated to those for which they were

intended, for his or her benefit

 Participation of the accused.

b. Bribery Sec 5

It means giving or accepting to give a public official anything to do with; vote or abstains

from voting, do or abstain from performing his/her duty, aids in procuring or preventing the

passing of any vote in favour of any person etc. it is defined in Black’s law dictionary as the

offering, giving, receiving or soliciting of any item of value to influence the actions of an official

or other person in discharge of a public or legal duty in the case of Uganda V Moses Ndifuna.

c. Abuse of office/misuse of office Sec 11 (1)

It refers to a person who being employed in a public body or company does an arbitrary act

prejudicial to his/her bosses in which the government has shares, in abuse of the authority of

his/her office. The punishment for this offence is imprisonment not exceeding 7 years and a fine

not exceeding one hundred and sixty eight currency points or both.

Ingredients

o That the accused was employed in a public body or a company in which the government has

shares.

o That the act was done in abuse of the authority of his/her office or he/she acted beyond his

powers in the case of Uganda V Atugonza Criminal Case 37/2010.

o That the accused did or directed to be done an arbitrary act.

o That the right was an interest recognized and protected by law in respect of which he has a

duty and disregard or which was wrong.

o That the arbitrary act was prejudicial to the interests of his/her employer or any other person

in the case of Barungi V Uganda.

d. Embezzlement Sec 19.

It refers to the situation where a person, who being an employee, officer, servant of the

government or public body or company steals any chattel, money or valuable security being

property of his/her employer to which he has access by the virtue of his/her office commits an

offence and is liable to a term of imprisonment not exceeding 14 years and a fine not exceeding

three hundred and thirty six currency points or both.

Ingredients

 That the accused is employed by the government or company in the case of Abahikye Moses

V Uganda HCA No.10/2009.

 That the accused stole employer’s property i.e. money, any other thing capable of being

stolen in the case of Eza Sebufu V Uganda (1995) KARL 40.

 That the property came into his/her possession by the virtue of his/her employment in the

case of Uganda V Teddy Ssezi Cheeye High Court Criminal Case No.1254/2008.

 That he/she is responsible for the act in the case of Kassim Mpanga V Uganda Supreme

Court Criminal Session No.30/1994.

e. Causing financial lose Sec 20

 It is an offence for any worker who does anything knowing or having reasons to believe that it

will cause financial loss to his/her employer commits an offence and is liable to imprisonment

not exceeding 14 years and a fine not exceeding 6,720,000/=

Ingredients

That he/she is being employed in a public body in the case of Uganda V Okello.

Knowing or having reason to believe that the act or omission will cause financial loss in the

case of Uganda V Benjamin Mugume & Ors.

That a financial loss is caused to the government, public body or company in the case of

Uganda V Eng. Bagonza Samson.

That it was the accused that was responsible for the offence committed.

8. ANTI TERRORISM OFFENCES

9. OFFENCES RELATED TO ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

=THE END=