Examinations Answer Sheet Trinity 2020/Advent Semester 2021

CANDIDATE’S REGISTRATION NUMBER

Non-Retake
B
Retake S 2 O B 1 1 O 1 8

ACCESS NUMBER:_A89287________________________
COLLEGE/CAMPUS: (If not Main Campus) __MUKONO____________________________________

FACULTY: ___LAW____________________ PROGRAM (e.g LLB1, BSW2, MDIV2)

__LLB1_________

COURSE OF EXAMINATION _FUNDAMENTALS OF CRIMINAL

LAW.___________________________________________________
(As Shown on the question paper)

DATE OF EXAMINATION: January 22nd 2021th – February 5th 2021

NB: No Answer Script shall be accepted after 05th February 2021 midnight
NOTE:
Uganda Christian University Integrity Covenant
As a student of the Uganda Christian University, it is my responsibility to conduct For Examiners Use
the whole of my academic career with unwavering integrity. I do this because I Only
value integrity and because the entire scholarly enterprise is balanced on the Q I.E. E.E.
assumption
QUESTION that1.
we can trust one another.

Therefore, I pledge to act with academic integrity by;      

BRIEF FACTS .
i. Writing this examination
ii. Identifying/acknowledging
Muhindo returned to Uganda theafter
source30ofyears
the ideas or words or
to continue hisimages
political      
that I used in my work
activism .He went a head to hold a public political rally without notice of the
By writing this examination I accept to be bound by this covenant, and accept the
     
consequences
authorities which ifled
I amto
in breach thereof Nyangoma his wife made efforts to
his arrest.
Your Response Should
organize bond
 Befor himin but
typed was
digital rudely
word formatintercepted byinLDU’S
and submitted who
Portable slapped ,
Document      
Format (.pdf)
abused and further termed her as the wife to the terrorist .Nyangoma was
 Use the Trebuchet MS font type; size 11, Line spacing 1.5      
subjected to your
Submit thorough body answers
examination searching butUniversity
to the the male LDU instead
through the emailsqueezed
provided her
breastson
. the
Shequestion paper
then retaliated by kicking his manhood .Nyangoma was beaten      
to unconsciousness by the LDU’S colleague’s .She was admitted at a hospital
     
however upon her exit,she made out with a phone that certainly didn’t Total
belong to her but resembled hers .Kajanja a police officer wants her charged Mark    

LIST QUESTIONS ANSWERED (in their Numeric order) 1

01Trinity 2020/Advent 2021Examinations Page 1

for theft , treason , terrorism and making a security guard important despite clearly knowing
that Nyangoma’s phone was stolen by one of his men.

ISSUES.

1.Whether there are possible offences?

2.Whether there are possible defences?

LAWS APPLICABLE

1.1995 Constitution of Uganda as amended

2.The penal Code Act Cap 120

3.The Anti –Terrorism Act 2002

4.Case law

RESOLUTION OF ISSUES.

1.Whether there are possible offenses?

Sub issue (1a)Whether there’s an offense of theft ?

Article 26(2) of the constitution states that no person shall be compulsorily deprived of
property or any interest in or right of property of any description .Section 254 of the penal code Act
states that a person who fraudulently and without claim of right takes anything capable of being
stolen ,or fraudulently converts to the use of any person other than the general or special owner
thereof anything capable of being stolen , is said to steal that thing. Section 261 of the penal code Act
brings out the punishment for theft .It states that any person who steals anything capable of being
stolen commits the felony called theft and is liable ,unless owing to the circumstances of the theft or
the nature of the thing stolen some other punishment is provided ,to imprisonment not exceeding ten
years .In the case of Uganda vrs Ndyabahika Collins and Another (HCT -04-CR-SC-272-2013)(2014).
Justice Henry Kaweesa provided the ingredients for theft.

1.) That there was theft.

2.) That the property was fraudulently taken away by the culprit.
3.) That the intention was to deprive the owner of the property .
4.) That there was participation.

01Trinity 2020/Advent 2021Examinations Page 2

 The first ingredient is proved by whether the item was movable .Section 253(1) of the
penal code Act states that every inanimate thing,which is the property of any person and
which is movable ,is capable of being stolen.In this situation , the phone is indeed a
movable object. The second ingredient of whether the property was fraudulently taken
away by the culprit.This is proved by the fact that the culprit took the property and did
not return it .This is clearly seen by the fact that that one of Kajanja’s men took took her
phone away. The third ingredient is proved by how much effort the person put in
returning the object. This is clearly portrayed by the fact that the individual did not put
any effort in returning the phone. The fourth ingredient is proved by direct evidence,
testimonies and circumstantial evidence. The facts in the case above show that
Nyangoma’s phone was stolen by the policeman and he deprved her of the use of her
phone. In this situation , he must be punished for theft as stated in section 261 of the
Penal Code Act hence, this issue is answered in affirmative

Sub issue(1b)Whether there is an offence of terrorism?

Section (2) of the terrorism act of 2002 points out that any person who aids or a bets or
financesvor harbours ,or renders support to any person , knowing or having reason to
believe that the support will be applied or used for or in connection with the preparation
or commission or instigation of acts of terrorism commits an offence….In the case of
Uganda v Husseine Hassan Agade and 12 others (criminal session case no.0001 of
2010)(2016)UGHCICD 1 Justice Alphonse Owiny –Dollo listed the ingredients of terrorism.

1.) Death of persons.

2.) Unlawful cause of death
3.) Malice a fore thought
4.) Participation of the individual.

The first ingredient is proved by the presence of a death certificate, post-mortem and
testimonies .In this case , non of the above is proved. The second ingredient is proved by the
parts of the body aimed at and the weapons used.Non of the above is proved in this case. The
third ingredient is proved by the part of the body aimed at , the weapons used and the
relationship between the accused and the victims. Section 191(a) of the penal code act
explains malice a forethought as an intention to cause death of any person ,whether such a
person is the person actually killed or not .Hence in this case , non of the ingredients are
proved hence the issue is answered in the negative. Ingredient four is proved by direct
evidence , circumstantial evidence and testimonies.In the instant facts , non of the
ingredients is proved by Muhindos actions hence this issue is answered in the negative.

01Trinity 2020/Advent 2021Examinations Page 3

Sub issue (1c)Whether there is an offence of treason?

Article 3(2) of the constitution states that any person who , singly or in concert with
others ,by any violent or other unlawful means ,suspends ,overthrows ,abrogates or amends
this constitution or any part of it or attempts to do any such act ,commits the offence of
treason and shall be punished according to law. Section 25 of the Penal Code Act of the
Penal Code Act further explains the offense of treason. In the case of Gabula Bright v
Uganda (Criminal Appeal No .19 of 1993), the following ingredients of treason were laid
out .

1.)An obligation of allegiance to the legal order

2.)That there was intension to commit treason.

3.)That there was an overt Act

4.)Participation of the accused

The first ingredient is proved by showing that the accused is a citizen of the country .The
third ingredient is proved by the fact that the actions of the accused are co ordinate with
section 32 of the Penal Code Act which clearly defines an overt act.The fourth ingredient is
also proved by direct evidence, testimonies and circumstantial evidence.The facts provided in
this case do not portray treason and it is therefore clear to state that this issue is answered in
the negative.

Sub issue 1 (d)Whether there was in descent assault?

Section 128(1) of the penal code Act states that any person who unlawfully and indescently
assaults any woman or girl commits a felony and is liable to imprisonment for fourteen
years .In the instant facts ,Nyangoma was indecently assaulted by the LDU who squeezed her
breasts something which is very offensive and against the law hence the LDU can be charged
for indescent assault as stated in the Penal Code Act Cap 120.

Sub issue 1(e)Whether there was actual bodily harm?

Section 236 of the Penal Code Act states that any person who commits an assault
occasioning actual bodily harm commits a misdemeanour and is liable to imprisonment for
five years .In the case of Uganda v Gbonga and 2 others (criminal Appeal No.0005 of 2015 )
(2017)UGHCCRD 101 (28 JUNE 2017) Justice Stephen Mubiru laid out the ingredients of
actual body harm.

01Trinity 2020/Advent 2021Examinations Page 4

 a) That there was unlawful assault of the complainant.
b) That the assault caused actual bodily harm.
c) That there was participation of the accused.

The second ingredient can be proved by medical reports and testimonies by witnesses .The
third ingredient can be proved by direct evidence, testimonies and circumstantial evidence
hence, the above facts portray actual bodily harm .This is clearly seen by the officer’s act of
beating Nyangoma to unconsciousness and leading to her admission in a hospital hence, this
issue is answered in the affirmative.

ISSUE NO.2 whether there are possible defences?

The defence of self-defence. Section 15(a) (b) states that for the use of force in defence of
person and property and in respect of rash, reckless or negligent acts shall be determined
according to the principles of English law. In the case of Uganda v Omony Patrick (criminal
sessions case NO.oo61 of 2017) Justice Stephen Mubiru stated the ingredients / elements for
self-defence.1.) The accussed must believe that he or she is under attack which may cause
hurt.2.)The accused believes that the use of force is necessary to defend against danger
3.)The force used must be reasonable.In the instant facts, Nyangoma can rely on self-defence
since she was under attack by the officer.

The defence of provocation.

Section 192 of the penal code act points out that when a person who unlawfully kills
another under circumstances which but for this section would constitute murder does the act
which causes the death in the heat of passion caused by sudden provocation as defined in
section 193 and before there is time for cooling off ,he or she only commits manslaughter. A
case in point is that of Sowed Ndoshire v Uganda (criminal appeal no.28 of 1989).The
ingredients for provocation were laid out. 1.) That there was a wrongful act sufficient to
enrage any person or class to which the accused belongs. 2.)That the accused attained a
sudden heat of passion 3.)That the killing of the victim was sudden with no cooling
off.4.)That there was a connection between the hit of passion and cooling off. In the instant
facts, the policemen were provoked because there colleague was hit in the balls however the
defence cannot stand.

The defence of principle of Legality . Article 28(12) of the constitution states that except
for contempt of court , no person shall be convicted of a criminal offense unless the offense
is defined and the penalty for it prescribed by the law.In the case of Gichina v R (1970)EA
105, The court pointed out that the offense of handling stolen goods by the accussed did not

01Trinity 2020/Advent 2021Examinations Page 5

exist on the date he was meant to have committed the between the 3 rd and 4th of Jan
1969.The act that came into effect on 25 th March 1969 was not retrospective. In the instant
facts ,Kajanja a police officer wanted Nyangoma to be charged with an offense of making a
security officer impotent however , the offense is not in existence hence Nyangoma can take
on the defence of principle of legality.

Question 3(a) BRIEF FACTS.

Baba used to sell a drug called “heart beat gold”. On 5 th January, 2021, the parliament
criminalised the sale of the drug .Esther claimed to have bought the drug in 2020 and got
complications hence she is seeking for the Arrest of Baba.

ISSUES.

Whether Baba can depend on the defence of principle of legality?

LAW APPLICABLE

1.) The 1995 Constitution of Uganda as amended

2.) The Penal Code Act Cap 120
3.) Case law

RESOLUTION OF ISSUES.

Whether Baba can depend on the defence of principle of Legality?

Article 28(7) of the constitution states that no person shall be charged with or convicted of
a criminal offence which is founded on an act or omission that did not at the time it took
place constitute a criminal offence. Article 28(12) states that except for contempt of court ,
no person shall be convicted of a criminal offence unless the offence is defined and the
penalty for it prescribed by law. In the case of Gichina v R (1970) EA 105 the court provided
that the offense of handling stolen by the accused did not exist on the date it was committed
between (3rd and 4th Jan 1969). The act that came into effect on 25 th March 1969 did not have
a retrospective effect.In the case of Salvatori Abuki v Attorney general (constitutional
petition no.2 of 1977) court declared the witchcraft act unconstitutional as it didn’t have
the punishments of the offense of practicing witchcraft.

QUESTION (3b)Whether or not Mobi young can be charged for criminal trespass?

BRIEF FACTS.

01Trinity 2020/Advent 2021Examinations Page 6

Mobi young drew on the wall of a supermarket .He was told that his act was an offence and
he had neglected a signpost which said do not draw on the walls hence he was arrested

ISSUES

1.)Whether Mobi young can be charged for the crime of trespass?

2.)Whether Mobi young can be charged for criminal trespass?

LAW APPLICABLE

The Penal Code Act Cap 120

Case Law

RESOLUTION OF ISSUES.

1.)Whether Mobi young can be charged for malicious damage of property ?

Section 335 of the Penal Code Act states that any person who willfuly and unlawfully destroys
or damages any property commits an offence and is liable if no other punishment is provided
to imprisonment for five years. In the case of Uganda v Gbonga and 2 others (Criminal Appeal
No .0005 of 2015)(2017) UGHCCRD 101 (28 JUNE 2017). Justice Stephen Mubiru laid out the
ingredients that constitute malicious damage of property. 1.)That tangible property was
damaged. 2.)That the property was unlawfully damaged 3.)That the respondent participated
in damaging the property

The facts above disclose malicious damage of property hence the respondant can be charged
with the offense of Malicious damage.

2.)Whether Mobi young can be charged for criminal treepass?

Section 302(b) of the penal code Act states that any person who enters into or upon property
in the possession of another with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate ,insult or
annoy any person or with intent to commit any offence ,commits the misdemeanour termed
criminal trespass and is liable to imprisonment for one year. In the case of Opio v Uganda
(criminal appeal no.0010 of 2014) (2017 )UGHCCRD 4 (10 Jan 2017) .Court laid out the
ingredients of criminal trespass.

a) The unlawful entry into property which is owned by another individual

b) The intention to commit an offence ,intimidate or annoy the person who owns the
property

01Trinity 2020/Advent 2021Examinations Page 7

 c) The entry or use of the property has to be unlawful

The facts above disclose or prove that Mobi young had trespassed into Ganjo supermarket
hence he can be charged with the offence of criminal trespass.

QUESTION 5

The blacks law dictionary defines vicarious liability as one that a supervisory party bears for
the actionable conduct or subordinate or associate based on the relationship between the two
parties .

In simple terms it refers to legal responsibility for the acts of another or liability for the acts
of another for example if Ajok an employee of ojok knocks someone on the road ojok will be
held vicariously liable for the action of ajok however this will only happen if ajok committed
this act during the course of her employment.

The general rule is that one is liable only for one’s own actions and not for the actions of
others .vicarious liability violates the second principle, that criminal liability must be based
on personal fault.

Vicarious liability operates on two principals ie;

where the master delegates a duty imposed upon him on to a servant.

Secondly where a master is held liable because acts which are done physically by the servant,
may in law be the masters acts.

The delegation principle provides that if a statute imposes a duty on a particular person, e.g
the holder of a justices’ license and that person delegates the performance of the statutory
duty to another, he may be held liable for breaches of it committed by the delegate,
although mensrea is required. The mensrea of the delegate is enough to impose liability on
the delegator for breach of the duty which is imposed on him and him alone.In Vane v
Yiannapoulous [1964]3 W.L.R 12

The respondent held a restaurant license. The condition was that the liquor was not to be
sold to only people having there meals.The business was on two floors , the waitress on the
other floor sold liquor to customers who had not ordered for meals . In this case the court
pointed out that no authority had been delegated in the sense in which the word has been
used in various cases, In the case , the liscensee had given instructions and the employees
had to follow hence the respondent was not liable for the crime committed by the employee.
If a liscensee delegates someone and that delegate also delegates another , the liscensee is
not liable for the crime committed by the sub delegate.

01Trinity 2020/Advent 2021Examinations Page 8

In the case of R v Winson [1968] 1 ALL ER 197 The club was run by a manager who was
appointed by the managing director. The appellant had licenses for three other premises, he
visited the club once in a while the person appealing was the director of a company who
held the holder of a justices’ a liscence for the club.This liscence provided that no liquor
would be sold to any individual who had spent less than 48hours as a member however, Liquor
was sold and it was against the terms of the Act.He was charged according to section161 (1)
of the liscensing Act.Where if a man is absent and leaves somebody else in control, he cannot
state that the act happened without his knowledge if the delegate has knowingly breached
the terms of the license.

In Linnett v Metropolitan police Commissioner [1946] KB 290 Lord Goddard stated that ‘
The point doesn’t depend merely on the fact that the relationship of master and servant
exists; it depends on the fact that the person who is responsible in law as the keeper of the
house, or the licensee of the house if the offense is under the licensing act has chosen to
delegate his duties, powers and authority to somebody else’

b)where the servant’s act is the master’s act in law

The master will be held responsible for acts that are committed by a servant where according
to law is seen as crimes done by the master .This is common where the offense is in line with
strict liability for example where selling of goods is the main feature of the actus reus, this is
seen in acts like the sale of goods act cap 82. If goods in a shop are being sold by a shop
helper, the seller remains the owner of the goods If at one point the goods are sold without
probably a trading liscence , the owner of the shop is seen as the one who has sold them,
even if he has no mensrea, He is still said to have commited the offence.
In Coppen v Moore 1898 2 QB 306 Although a transaction was carried out by a servant the
fact still remained that the appellant had committed a crime of selling goods with a false
trade description.

01Trinity 2020/Advent 2021Examinations Page 9

01Trinity 2020/Advent 2021Examinations Page 10
01Trinity 2020/Advent 2021Examinations Page 11
01Trinity 2020/Advent 2021Examinations Page 12