[1941] EACA 84
The court found that the appellants, together with others, set upon the deceased with the common intention of giving him an unmerciful beating, which resulted in his death. The evidence established that all five accused participated in the beating, and the medical testimony confirmed the severity of the injuries....
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1941] EACA 84
- Parties
- Appellant: Mikaeri Kyeyune; Appellant: Misairi Mukasa; Appellant: Benwa Kibebwe; Appellant: Kaloli Kizito; Appellant: Asanasiyo Mukasa; Respondent: Rex
- Court
- East African Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeals Nos. 134, 135, 136, 137 and 138 of 1941
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal_dismissed
- Judges
- Sheridan, (C.J. Kenya), Webb CJ, Whitley CJ
- Legal Topics
- Murder, Common Intention, Malice Aforethought, Grievous Harm, Group Liability
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Mikaeri Kyeyune
Appellant
Misairi Mukasa
Appellant
Benwa Kibebwe
Appellant
Kaloli Kizito
Appellant
Asanasiyo Mukasa
Appellant
Rex
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellants, acting with common intention, are guilty of murder under section 22 of the Penal Code.
- 2 Whether the beating administered by the appellants with sticks, resulting in death, constitutes murder with malice aforethought.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the appellants, together with others, set upon the deceased with the common intention of giving him an unmerciful beating, which resulted in his death. The evidence established that all five accused participated in the beating, and the medical testimony confirmed the severity of the injuries. Applying section 22 of the Penal Code, the court held that each appellant, by virtue of their common intention and participation, was responsible for the probable consequence of their actions—namely, the death of the victim. The court concluded that the findings of fact and law by the trial judge were correct, and that the appellants were properly convicted of murder. The appeals...
Court Disposition
appeal_dismissed
Orders
- The appeals are dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
15 paragraphs
## COURT OF APPEAL FOR EASTERN AFRICA
Before Sir JOSEPH SHERIDAN, C. J. (Kenya), Sir HENRY WEBB, C. J. (Tanganyika) and SIR NORMAN WHITLEY, C. J. (Uganda)
REX, Respondent
## ν.
## (1) MIKAERI KYEYUNE, (2) MISAIRI MUKASA, (3) BENWA KIBEBWE, (4) KALOLI KIZITO, (5) ASANASIYO MUKASA, Appellants
## Criminal Appeals Nos. 134, 135, 136, 137 and 138 of 1941
Appeal from decision of H. M. High Court of Uganda
Criminal Law-Murder-Death resulting from severe beating with sticks-Malice aforethought-Intent to cause grievous harm-Common intent-Uganda Penal Code, section 22.
Appellants and others set upon the deceased, whom they believed to be a thief or a person addicted to thieving, with the common intention of giving him an unmerciful beating and beat him with sticks so that he died soon afterwards. The trial Judge found that those concerned in the beating were actuated by a common intent to cause grievous harm.
Held (27-10-41).—That the appellants were each guilty of murder.
Appellants absent unrepresented.
Kingsley, Crown Counsel, for the Crown.
JUDGMENT (delivered by SIR JOSEPH SHERIDAN, C. J.).—We have carefully examined the evidence in this case and we are fully aware of the difficulty of such. cases where a number of people set upon an individual and with sticks and/or fists or whatever may be to hand beat him. The learned trial Judge who obviously had in mind that the conviction of all five accused depended on the applicability of section 22 of the Penal Code to the facts came to the conclusion-and the assessors agreed with him—that the five accused were guilty of murder. Section 22 provides: -
"Where two or more persons form a common intention to prosecute an unlawful purpose in conjunction with one another, and in the prosecution of such purpose an offence is committed of such a nature that its commission was a probable consequence of the prosecution of such purpose, each of them is deemed to have committed the offence."
The evidence supports the view that a person was caught who was regarded whether rightly or wrongly as a thief and that a number of persons set upon him with the common intention of giving him an unmerciful beating which they did with the result that the victim died soon after. The medical evidence was that the body bore testimony to the beating having been such that the doctor had never seen a worse beating. It seems to us, and the learned Judge and assessors so found, that any person identified as having taken part in the beating must be regarded as linked by a common intention within the meaning of the section quoted making him responsible for the death and so responsible for the crime of murder. All five accused are shown to have played some part in the terrible beating with its terrible consequences. It is but reasonable to hold that those who took part in the beating must be taken to have had the knowledge that grievous harm at least was a probable consequence. We cannot say in these circumstances that the findings of fact or law of the learned judge were wrong. As to whether there should be any discrimination made between the accused as to the respective degrees of responsibility or as to whether the capital sentences should be commuted that is a matter for consideration in another quarter. The appeals are dismissed.