[2002] UGHCCRD 22
The court held that although the appellants were not directly implicated in the commission of malicious damage to property, the evidence established their participation in planning and inciting the commission of the offence. Under section 143 of the Magistrates' Courts Act, the trial court was justified in...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2002] UGHCCRD 22
- Parties
- Appellant: Agaba A.; Appellant: Baja D.; Appellant: Kanyamunyu; Appellant: Kamwegyema; Appellant: Kabigumira; Respondent: Uganda
- Court
- HC: Criminal Division (Uganda)
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal No. 12/99
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Judges
- Mugamba, J
- Legal Topics
- Malicious Damage to Property, Conspiracy, Incitement, Cognate Offences
- Source Language
- english
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Agaba A.
Appellant
Baja D.
Appellant
Kanyamunyu
Appellant
Kamwegyema
Appellant
Kabigumira
Appellant
Uganda
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellants could be convicted for conspiracy and incitement to commit malicious damage to property despite not being directly implicated in the commission of the offences.
- 2 Whether the lower court was correct in convicting the appellants of a minor cognate offence under section 143 of the Magistrates' Courts Act.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that although the appellants were not directly implicated in the commission of malicious damage to property, the evidence established their participation in planning and inciting the commission of the offence. Under section 143 of the Magistrates' Courts Act, the trial court was justified in convicting them of a minor cognate offence, namely conspiracy and incitement to commit malicious damage to property. The appeal was found to have no merit and was dismissed.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed.
- Right of appeal explained to the appellants.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
29 paragraphs
THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KABALE
**CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 12/99**
(Arising out of Kabale Cr. Case No. 161/1998)
A1 AGABA A.
A2 BAJA D.
A3 KANYAMUNYU
A4 KAMWEGYEMA
A5 KABIGUMIRA…………………………………………………. APPLICANTS
VERSUS
UGANDA…………………………………………………………….. RESPONDENT
BEFORE: THE HON. JUSTICE P. MUGAMBA
JUDGMENT
The appellants herein were charged before the Chief Magistrate’s
Court at Kabale with four counts namely malicious damage to property, contrary to section 315(1) of the Penal Code, store braking, contrary to section 284 of the Penal Code, theft, contrary to sections 245(1) and 252 of the Penal Code. The Grade 1 Magistrate who convicted them made the following observations prior to conviction:
‘it is evident from the above analysis that none of the accused can be directly implicated with commission of any of the above charges. What is on record and what can be proved against them is that they were participants in inciting into the commission of the said crimes either at planning level or even directly.
S. 143 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act provides that when a person is charged with an offence and facts are proved which reduce it to a minor cognate offence, he or she may be convicted of the minor offence although he was not charged with it.
In this instant case the accused conspired and incited the commission of the offence of malicious damage to property of Byaruhanga Boniface and Byaruhanga Matias to section 23(2) of the Penal Code Act and I hereby convict them accordingly.
It was contended by counsel for the appellants that there is no cognate offence of conspiracy to damage property. From the text quoted above it should be clear that the lower court found the offences of malicious damage to property since there was evidence of the appellants having attended a meeting where plans to damage the complainants’ property were discussed.
Consequently, I find no merit in this appeal and I dismiss it.
19/02/2002
Mr. Kasirivu for the appellants
Appellants in Court
State Attorney absent
Mr. Turyamuboona Court Clerk.
Court: Judgment read in open Court.
Right of appeal explained.
P. Mugamba
Judge