Wakilii

Lesso v Regina (Criminal Appeal No. 144 of 1952)

East African Court of Appeal · [1952] EACA 249 · 1952 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal appeal from murder conviction in High Court of Tanganyika
Decision
Murder conviction upheld

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

The Court held that provocation under sections 201 and 202 of the Penal Code does not extend to wrongful acts done to property but is confined to wrongful acts done to the person. While a property owner may defend property and arrest intruders using necessary force, the appellant exceeded lawful bounds by pursuing a fleeing intruder one hundred yards and inflicting multiple fatal blows. The trial judge correctly found the dominant intention was to kill in retaliation, not to effect arrest. Appeal dismissed.

Outcome

Murder conviction upheld

Facts

At midnight on 8-9 April 1952, the appellant was awakened by noise of someone digging at the wall of his house. He seized a bill-hook and went outside. Seeing two persons running away, he pursued one for about one hundred yards. The fugitive fell and the appellant struck him several times on the head with the bill-hook, killing him. Post-mortem examination revealed seven cut wounds to the head and face and one to the chest, including a two-inch penetration into the brain. The appellant returned home, found bricks removed from his wall, and summoned a Native Court Messenger. The deceased was identified as Tandu. The High Court convicted the appellant of murder.

Issues

  1. Whether provocation under sections 201 and 202 of the Penal Code applies to wrongful acts done to property.
  2. Whether the appellant's use of force in pursuing and killing a fleeing intruder was justified as defence of property or lawful arrest.
  3. Whether the appellant's dominant intention was to kill in retaliation or merely to effect arrest.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.

Rules and key headnotes

Homicide — Provocation — Wrongful Acts to Property
The defence of provocation under sections 201 and 202 of the Penal Code is confined to wrongful acts or insults done to the person and does not extend to wrongful acts done to property unaccompanied by any act or insult to a person.
Homicide — Defence of Property — Limits
A person is entitled to defend property and if necessary inflict death upon intruders attempting burglarious entry, but this right does not extend to pursuing a fleeing intruder who has desisted from the attempt to break in.
Arrest — Use of Force — Reasonableness
A property owner may arrest persons found committing offences involving injury to property and use all means necessary to effect arrest, but the degree of force used must be reasonable having regard to the gravity of the offence and the circumstances in which it was committed.
Murder — Intention — Retaliation versus Lawful Purpose
Where the nature of an attack indicates that the accused's dominant intention was to kill in retaliation rather than to effect arrest or defend property, a conviction of murder is proper notwithstanding that the accused may have had some initial lawful justification.

Legislation cited (7)

  • Penal Code s.201
  • Penal Code s.202
  • Penal Code s.19
  • Penal Code s.294
  • Penal Code s.381
  • Criminal Procedure Code s.32
  • Criminal Procedure Code s.19(2)

Cases cited (2)

  • Rex v Murume (1945) 12 EACA 80
  • Rex v Machage (1935) 2 EACA 94

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Lesso v Regina (Criminal Appeal No. 144 of 1952) [1952] EACA 249 (1 January 1952)
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.