CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CAT 1

LLB YEAR 3 SEMESTER 1

BY BIKU BRENDA
ID 0761-61

[A]
THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT GRADE 1
STATION; BUGANDA ROAD
REF; 8JHC+GWH
DATE; 29TH October 2022-10-29
CHARGE SHEET

UGANDA………………………………………………………………PROSECUTION
VS
PIYO AGABA…………………………………………………………ACCUSED

COUNT 1; STATEMENT OF OFFENCE

THEFT; contrary to sections 254[1] [2] [a], 2261 of the penal code Act cap 120.
PARTICULARS OF THE OFENCE
Piyo Agaba stole USD 1000000 which he had just obtained from the Bank Vault for Barclays
Bank Acacia Mall.

COUNT 2; STATEMENT OF THE OFFENCE

ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF FIRE ARMS; contrary to section 3[1], [2] [a] and [b], [3],
[4] of the Firearms Act cap 299.
PARTICULARS OF THE OFFENCE
Piyo Agaba had in his possession an automatic Riffle just in case he needed it on a mission at
Barclay Bank Acacia Mall when he was arrested by police.
………..brenda…………. …………………………
BRENDA MAGISTRATE
RESIDENT STATE ATTORNEY- DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
Officer preferring charges
I consent to the above charges
……brenda………………..
BRENDA
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

[B]
Issue summons and warrants
As a magistrate grade I, I would issue summons under section 6[b] of the magistrate court
Act, provides for the magistrate to issue summons or warrants, as he or she shall deem fit, to
compel the attendance of the accused person before the court over which he or she presides or
if the offence is out of the jurisdiction of the magistrate court, it will be committed before a
court of competent jurisdiction.
Under the jurisdiction of the Magistrate court grade 1 in section 161[2] of the magistrates
court Act,1 a magistrate grade I may try any offence other than an offence in respect of
which the maximum penalty is death or life imprisonment.
In this case Piyo Agaba is charged with two counts of offence , theft contrary to sections 254
[1], 2[a] and section 261 the penal code and possession of fire arm contrary to section 3[1],
[2] [a] and [b], [3], [4] of the Firearms Act cap 299. Under the penal code the punishment for
an offence of theft is imprisonment not exceeding ten years,2 while the possession of fire arm
is also imprisonment not exceeding ten years.3 This means the magistrate grade one has
jurisdiction to try the offence charged hence as a magistrates grade one, I summon the
accused to court.
Plea taking
The accused will have to take a plea of either guilty or not guilty, previous conviction or plea
of presidential pardon. Under Article 28[3] [a] of the constitution, every person charged with
a criminal offence shall be innocent until proven guilty. The substance of the charge shall
then be stated to the accused person by the court and the accused person shall be asked
whether she or he admits or denies the truth of the charge. The charge shall be read out to the
accused and explained to him in the language he understands
 A plea of guilty is supposed to be done voluntarily by the accused person under the
constitution and not induced
 A plea of not guilty Under magistrate court Act section 124[3] is not supposed to be
used by the prosecution the accused
 A plea of previous conviction under section 89 Of the magistrate court Act, 4 means
that the person has been tried and convicted of an offence on the same material fact
and hence cannot be tried again on the same.
 A plea or presidential pardon under Article 28[9] of the constitution, 5 is that no person
shall be tried for a criminal offence if that person shows he or she has been pardoned
in respect to that offence. Hence Piyo Agaba is required to plea guilty not guilty,
previous conviction.
In Adan v Republic [1973] 1 EA 445 the appellant was charged in the resident magistrate’s
court of Wajir with the offence of stock theft His plea is recorded in the following words. “It
is true I stole that bull. It was in the boma with others and I stole it. I was arrested with it.”
This was entered as a plea of guilty and a conviction was recorded.
1
Magistrates Court Act Cap 16 of the Laws of Uganda 2000
2
Section 261 Penal Code Act cap 120.
3
Section 3 of the Firearms Act cap 299.
4
Magistrates Court Act Cap 16 of the Laws of Uganda 2000
5
Constitution of Uganda 1995 as amended
 In this case Piyo Agaba claimed that, the offence was a framing from his political enemies,
this can be recorded as a plea of not guilty.
Prosecution case
Prosecution will present their case, if the accused person does not admit the truth of the
charge; the court shall proceed to hear evidence from the prosecution. 6 In the case Piyo
Agaba plead not guilty, the prosecution will present its case. In the case of Woolmington v
dpp,7 court stated it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused person
subject to the defence of insanity and statutory exception and if the prosecution has not
proved their case beyond reasonable doubt, the accused is entitled to an acquittal.
The accused person or his or her advocate may put questions to each witnesses produce
against him by the prosecution or if the accused has no advocate, the he or she may be asked
to question the witnesses of the prosecution at close of examination.8
Ruling on no case to answer
when at the close of evidence adduced by the prosecution on the charge and it appears to
court that there is a case is made out against the accused to require him to make a defence ,
the court shall dismiss the case and acquit Piyo Agaba.
Defence case
The defence side therefore present their case. Under section 128[1] of the magistrate court
Act, At the close of the evidence in support of the charge, if it appears to the court that a case
is made out against the accused person sufficiently to require him to make a defence, the
court shall again explain the substance of the charge to the accused, and shall inform him that
he has the right to Give evidence on oath from the witness box and that if he does give
evidence on oath, he will be liable to cross examination Or to make a statement not on oath
without being cross examined. The accused also has a right to remain silent.
The court will also asked the accused if he or she has any witness to be examined or any
other evidence in his defence. Section 133 of the evidence Act, 9 state that no particular
number of witnesses is required to prove a particular fact in any case.
Providing evidence in reply
Under Section 130[1] if the magistrates court Act, the accused person adduces evidence in
his or defence introducing new matters which the prosecutor could not by the exercise of
reasonable diligence have foreseen, the court may allow the prosecutor to adduce evidence in
reply to contradict the new matter. after the close of the accused person’s case, the accused
person is entitled to address the court and the prosecution shall then be entitled to reply, but if
the accused adduces no evidence or no evidence other than that given by himself, the accused
shall subject to S.10112(3) be entitled to the right to reply.
Submission and judgement
6
Section 126[1] Magistrates Court Act Cap 16 of the Laws of Uganda 2000
7
[1935] UKHL 1
8
Section 126[2] and [3] of the magistrates court Act cap 16 of the Laws of Uganda 2000.
9
Evidence Act cap 6 of the Laws of Uganda 2000
10
Section 130[2]
The prosecution lawyer will submit of the case for the prosecution while the lawyer for the
accuse will after the defence case submit orally or written to the court regarding the defence
of the accused.
Lastly the magistrate will give the judgement on the case, the court having hear the evidence
called by the prosecution and by the defence in Piyo Agaba case shall convict the accused
and pass sentence upon or make an order against him according to law or shall acquit
him.
Before passing this stance the court may make such and inquiries as it thinks fit in order to
inform itself as to the proper sentence to be passed and may inquire into the character and
antecedence of the Piyo Agaba.11 . this consideration will be taken at the request of either the
prosecution or the accused in assessing proper sentence to be passed such as character and
antecedent including other offence admitted by him whether or not he has been convicted of
such offences and the accused shall be given opportunity to confirm or deny to explain nay
statement made about him and no offence the accused has not been convicted shall not be
taken into account.
In Misango v Republic [1969] 1 EA 538 it was held Judgment is not judgement until
reduced into writing and delivered in court. Hence the judgement of the case will have to be
written down
The following as explained from summoning the accused to giving judgement are the steps I
will take as a magistrate grade me regarding Piyo Ababa’s case.

11
Section 133[2] Magistrates Court Act cap 16 of the Laws of Uganda 2000