Uganda Case Law

Okeny & 2 Others v Uganda

Okeny & 2 Others v Uganda (Criminal Revision 28 of 1991) [1991] UGHC 58 (3 May 1991)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

Criminal Revision 28 of 1991

Judges

GM OKELLO, J

The conviction of Okeny Justine was quashed because the plea on which it was based was equivocal and did not admit all the essential ingredients of the offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The charge was also found to be bad for duplicity, as it alleged assault on multiple persons in a single count, contrary to statutory requirements. Furthermore, the default sentence of one month imprisonment for non-payment of a fine of Shs. 2000/= was illegal, as the law prescribes a maximum of seven days imprisonment for such a fine. As a result, both the conviction and sentence were set asi…

Source excerpt

• Plea Equivocality
• Duplicity In Charges
• Default Sentence Illegality

Sirichand v Queen

Sirichand v Queen (Criminal Appeal No. 193 of 1955) [1955] EACA 271 (1 January 1955)

Court

East African Court of Appeal

Case number

Criminal Appeal No. 193 of 1955

Judge

O'Connor CJ, Rudd J

The court upheld a careless-driving conviction, holding that section 47(1) created two distinct offences, and that a stop sign marked the minor road at the junction.

• Careless Driving
• Traffic Signs
• Charge Particulars
• Major Minor Roads
• Duplicity In Charges
• Careless-driving

Gukuli v Reginam

Gukuli v Reginam (Criminal Appeal No. 75 of 1955) [1955] EACA 346 (1 January 1955)

Court

East African Court of Appeal

Case number

Criminal Appeal No. 75 of 1955

Judge

De Lestang J, Nihill P, Worley VP

The court held that section 61B of the Penal Code creates two distinct offences: administering an oath and being present and consenting to the administration of an oath. Charging both alternatives in a single count is bad for duplicity under section 135(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, as it fails to specify the precise offence for which the accused is convicted. This is a substantial, not merely formal, defect. The court found that such duplicity necessarily prejudices the accused, as he cannot know with certainty the exact offence of conviction, which impairs his ability to defend himself…

Source excerpt

• Duplicity In Charges
• Criminal Procedure Irregularities
• Failure Of Justice
• Alternative Offences
• Drafting Of Charges

Musinga and Others v Rex

Musinga and Others v Rex (Criminal Appeals Nos. 131, 132, 133, 134 and 135 of 1951) [1951] EACA 211 (1 January 1951)

Court

East African Court of Appeal

Case number

Criminal Appeals Nos. 131, 132, 133, 134 and 135 of 1951

Judge

Lewis, Ag. J. (Uganda), Nihill P, Worley VP

The Court of Appeal held that wolfram could be a mineral under the Uganda Mining Ordinance, upheld most possession and conspiracy convictions, and quashed one appellant’s conviction.

• Unlawful Possession Of Minerals
• Conspiracy
• Definition Of Mineral
• Burden Of Proof
• Duplicity In Charges
• Criminal-law

Rex v Kasyoka

Rex v Kasyoka (Criminal Appeal No. 124 of 1948) [1948] EACA 69 (1 January 1948)

Court

East African Court of Appeal

Case number

Criminal Appeal No. 124 of 1948

Judge

De Lestang J, Nihill P

The appeal was allowed because the appellant was charged with five separate offences in one charge, creating fatal duplicity, and the evidence was inadequately corroborated.

• Official Corruption
• Duplicity In Charges
• Penal Code Section 93
• Magistrate Trial Errors
• Duplicity-in-charges
• Official-corruption

Rex v Mathenge

Rex v Mathenge (Criminal Appeal No. 147 of 1946) [1946] EACA 60 (1 January 1946)

Court

East African Court of Appeal

Case number

Criminal Appeal No. 147 of 1946

Judge

De Lestang, Ag. J, Sheridan CJ

The appeal was allowed where the only link to the appellant was a poorly identified towel, prior convictions were raised before judgment, and the conviction was duplicitous.

• Burglary
• Theft
• Possession Of Stolen Property
• Evidence Of Previous Convictions
• Duplicity In Charges
• Criminal-procedure

Rex v Mereru and Another

Rex v Mereru and Another (CRIMINAL APPEALS Nos. 27, 28, 29 AND 30 OF 1939) [1939] EACA 118 (1 January 1939)

Court

East African Court of Appeal

Case number

CRIMINAL APPEALS Nos. 27, 28, 29 AND 30 OF 1939

Judge

Dalton, C.J(Tanganyika), Sheridan, (C.J. Kenya), Whitley CJ

Although the charge was technically defective for duplicity by including three murders in a single count, the defect was cured by section 335 of the Tanganyika Criminal Procedure Code because there was no evidence or suggestion that the accused were prejudiced or embarrassed in their defence, nor was there any failure of justice. The killings formed part of a single transaction, and the procedural irregularity did not affect the fairness of the trial or the validity of the convictions. The court followed established English, Kenyan, and Indian authorities, holding that procedural errors in th…

Source excerpt

• Duplicity In Charges
• Murder Trial Procedure
• Failure Of Justice
• Joinder Of Offences

Rex v Halake and Another (Cr.A. 43 & 44/1934.)

Rex v Halake and Another (Cr.A. 43 & 44/1934.) [1937] EACA 114 (1 January 1937)

Court

East African Court of Appeal

Case number

Cr.A. 43 & 44/1934.

Judge

Gamble. Ag. J. (Kenya), Horne J, Lucie-Smith Ag CJ (Kenya)

The Court of Appeal for Eastern Africa held that a murder charge containing two deaths in one count was duplicitous, but the conviction stood because no prejudice or failure of justice was shown.

• Duplicity In Charges
• Murder
• Misjoinder Of Offences
• Failure Of Justice
• Criminal Pleading
• Appeal Procedure