Wakilii

Kamuyu v Reginam (Criminal Appeal No. 1033 of 1954)

East African Court of Appeal · [1955] EACA 335 · 1955 Appeal Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal appeal from conviction by High Court of Tanganyika on two counts of wounding with intent
Decision
Appellant remains under sentence of 10 years' imprisonment with hard labour and 15 strokes of corporal punishment on the second count

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

Where an accused is charged with wounding with intent under section 222(1) of the Penal Code and the evidence supports multiple intents arising from a single act of wounding, those intents must be alleged in one count, not split into separate counts. Conviction on two separate counts for the same unlawful act violates section 21 of the Penal Code, which prohibits punishing a person twice for the same act. The proper charging practice follows the specimen charge in the Second Schedule to the Criminal Procedure Code, which sets out multiple intents disjunctively in a single count.

Outcome

Appellant remains under sentence of 10 years' imprisonment with hard labour and 15 strokes of corporal punishment on the second count

Facts

The appellant, an escaped prisoner, wounded the complainant Petro s/o Rahi. He was charged in the High Court of Tanganyika on two counts, both alleging wounding with intent contrary to section 222(1) of the Penal Code. Both counts related to the same act of wounding. The first count alleged intent to maim, disfigure or disable. The second count alleged intent to prevent the appellant's lawful arrest. The trial judge convicted on both counts and imposed concurrent sentences of 10 years' imprisonment with hard labour plus 15 strokes of corporal punishment. The evidence established that the appellant attacked Petro to prevent his arrest, which he believed to be imminent.

Issues

  1. Whether an accused person can be convicted on two separate counts charging the same unlawful act of wounding but alleging different intents under section 222(1) of the Penal Code.
  2. Whether conviction and sentence on both counts constitutes punishing the accused twice for the same offence contrary to section 21 of the Penal Code.
  3. What is the proper form of charge where evidence supports multiple intents for a single act of wounding with intent.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed in part.
  • Conviction and sentence on first count quashed.
  • Conviction and sentence on second count affirmed.
  • Sentence of corporal punishment remains.

Rules and key headnotes

Criminal Law & Procedure — Charging — Wounding with Intent — Multiple Intents — Proper Form of Charge
Where evidence supports multiple intents for a single act of wounding with intent under section 222(1) of the Penal Code, the proper course is to set out all intents disjunctively in the particulars of a single count, not to split them into separate counts.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Double Punishment — Same Offence — Section 21 Penal Code
Section 21 of the Penal Code prohibits punishing a person twice for the same act or omission. Where an accused is convicted on two separate counts both charging the same unlawful act of wounding but alleging different intents, the accused has been punished twice for the same act in violation of section 21.
Statutory Interpretation — Specimen Charges — Second Schedule Criminal Procedure Code — Guidance for Drafting
The specimen charges set out in the Second Schedule to the Criminal Procedure Code provide authoritative guidance on the proper form of charging offences. Crown Counsel should refer to these specimen charges when drafting informations to avoid errors in charging practice.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Wounding with Intent — Mens Rea — Multiple Intents
A person who commits the offence of wounding with intent under section 222 does not commit separate offences merely because his mens rea may include more than one of the several intents specified in the section.

Legislation cited (6)

  • Penal Code s.21
  • Penal Code s.222(1)
  • Penal Code s.228
  • Criminal Procedure Code s.138
  • Criminal Procedure Code Second Schedule item 5
  • Offences Against the Person Act 1861 s.18

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Kamuyu v Reginam (Criminal Appeal No. 1033 of 1954) [1955] EACA 335 (1 January 1955)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.