222-053011-23259

Question 1a)

A plea is an answer to a charge . it may be an admission or a denial to a charge. The accused person
must plead personally and it is not sufficient for his or her counsel to do so on his or her behalf. O r to
indicate that the accused wishes to plead guilty. There are various types of pleas. These are , plea of
guilty, plea of guilty to a lesser charge , ambiguous plea, refusal to plead , pleas of the jurisdiction , plea
of not guilty and lastly plea of autre fois or autre convict or pardon. Plea takin is one of the principles of
a fair trial under criminal justice system, where a person charged with a criminal offence is presumed to
be innocent until proved guilty or until that person pleads guilty Article 28(3) of the Constitution of the
Republic of Uganda 1995. The procedure for recording pleas has been laid down under section 124 of
the magistrates courts Act and also in the case of Adan v R (1973) where court held ;

(1) That when a person is charged , the charge and the particulars should be read out to him, so far
as possible in his own language but if that is not possible then in a language which he can speak
and understand .this is provided for under Article 28(3)(b) of the Republic of Uganda 1995 which
states that every person charged with a criminal offence shall be informed Immediately in a
language that the person understands of the nature of the offence.
(2) The magistrate should then explain to the accused person all the essential ingredients of the
offence charged . if the accused person then admits all those essential elements the magistrate
should record what the accused has said as nearly as possible in his own words and then
formally enter a plea of guilty.
(3) The magistrates should then ask the prosecutor to state the facts of the alleged offence and
when the statement is complete should give the accused an opportunity to dispute or explain
the facts or to add any relevant facts he may wish the court to know.
(4) If the accused does not agree with the statement of facts or asserts additional facts, which if
true might raise a question as to his guilty the magistrate should record a change of plea to not
guilty and proceed to hold a trial
(5) If the accused doesnot deny the alleged facts in any material respect, the magistrate should
record a conviction and proceed to hear any further facts relevant to sentence, the statement of
facts and the accused’s reply must of course be recorded. A plea od guilty must be properly
received and the results recorded . the appellants admissions must be recorded as nearly as
possible in the words used by him or her . the trial judge must not record plea of guilty entered
or that the accused pleads guilty when the statement made by the accused is equivocal. It has to
be unequivocal for this to be done .
However , the following are the execptions where a plea of taking will not be recorded. These
are; a)unfitness to plead. .if a court has reason to believe that a person is of unsound mind and
consequently incapable of making his or her defence the court is charged with the responsibility
in inquring into the matter as provided under section 113 of the MCA and section 46 of the TIA.
b)another exception falls in the language being used in the court which the accused may not
understand.
Question 1b)
1.Brief facts :
John charged of theft of both motor vehicles UBA 0000Z in Kampala and K000P in Nairobi
Kenya. He was charged before the magistrates courts of Nairobi and convicted and sentenced to
5years imprisonment which he served for both theft of Nairobi and that of Kampala. After he
was released, the Ugandan police arrested him again for the charge of theft of motor vehiche
UBA0000Z.
2. ISSUES ARAISING
ISSUE 1; WHETHER JOHN CAN BE CONVICTED BY THE UGANDA POLICE FOR THE OFFENCE OF
THEFT OF UBA0000Z MOTOR VEHICLE AT KAMPALA.
3.LAW APPLICABLE
Penal code Act cap 128
Case law.
4.RESOLUTIONS
ISSUE ;1 WHETHER JOHN CAN BE CONVICTED BY THE UGANDA POLICE FOR THE OFFENCE OF
THEFT OF UBA0000Z MOTOR VEHICLE AT KAMPALA
Theft as an offence is provided for under section 237 (1)of the penal code Act cap 128 which
states that a person who fraudulently and without claim of right takes anything capable of being
stolen or who fraudulently converts to the use of any person other than the general or special
owner of anything capable of being stolen , is said to steal that thing. Subsection 2 provides that
any person who takes or converts anything capable of being stolen is deemed to do fraudulently
if he or she does so with any of the following intents provided under subsection (a),(b),(c)(d) and
(e).from the above provisions , the ingredients for the offence of theft can be as follows,
1. Taking something capable of being stolen.
2. Without claim of right.
3. Intention to deprive the owner .
4. Participation of the accused.
Section 4 of the penal code Act cap 128 lays down the extent of the jurisdiction of the courts
of Uganda . the general rule under that section is that the jurisdiction of the Ugandan courts
is confined to crimes committed within the territory of Uganda . subsection 2 however
provides for an execption where offences committed outside Uganda can be tried in
Uganda. It provides that the courts of Uganda have jurisdiction to try offences created
under section 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 and section 28 committed outside Uganda by a Ugandan
citizen or person ordinarily resident in Uganda . these include treason terrorism among
others. In Uganda v mustafah Atama , the accused a kampala business man was charged in
the chief magistrates court with obtaining money by false pretence contractly to section 9 of
the PCA CAP 106. The prosecution alleged that the accused while in Republic of C Zaire
obtained shs3360 from the charged affairs of the Uganda embassy by falsely pretending that
he required the money for the maintenance of eight Ugandan soldiers who were stranded in
Zaire while on an official mission. The question was whether Ugandan courts had
jusrisdiction over the matter as the offense had been committed in the Republic of Zaire
though in Ugandan’s own embassy. The court held that where as the state is competent to
prosecute its own nationals for offences committed abroad on the basis of nationality ,
 however exercise of jurisdiction on the basis of nationality is not automatic but municipal
courts must be enabled to do so by legislation . the constitution of Uganda 1995 provides
that a person who shows that he or she has been tried by a competent court for a criminal
offence and convicted or aquitted of that offence shall not be tried again for the offence or
for any other criminal offence of which he or she could have been convicted at the trial for
that offence.(Article 28(9). In Yusufu katana and Edward kamulegeya v Uganda (1979), the
court dismissed the claim for the extradition of the accused to face the charge of holding
stolen property with which the accused were charged in Uganda. The stand with the
extradition offence was the same as that with which the accused were charged in Uganda.
However in R v Daudji, it was stated that the test is not whether the facts relied upon are
similar but whether the accused has been tried and convicted of an offence which is the
same as that with which he is charged. According to the facts above, john can be lawfully
tried by the courts of Uganda as per section 4 of the PCA despite the fact that he was
already been tried by the magistrates court of Nairobi of the same offence, this is because
Kenya and Nairobi are different countries with different jurisdictions making it lawfully for
the courts of Uganda to try john for the offence of theft contrary to section 237 of the PCA.
IN CONCLUSION JOHN DOES NOT HAVE ANY REMEDEY AVAILABLE .
.