Wakilii

Mukasa v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 17 of 2021)

High Court · [2021] UGHCCRD 107 · 2021 Appeal Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal appeal from conviction and sentence by Chief Magistrate's Court of Buganda Road
Decision
Appellant's convictions on two counts confirmed with one sentence reduced; appellant acquitted on two counts

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 High Court partly allowed the appeal. The conviction for installation of electrical wiring without a permit under s.88 of the Electricity Act was upheld but the sentence reduced from 24 months to 6 months imprisonment as the appellant was a first offender. The conviction and two-year sentence for obtaining money by false pretence under s.305 of the Penal Code Act was confirmed. The appellant was acquitted on the count of interference with electrical installations because there was no pre-existing electrical installation to interfere with. He was also acquitted on conspiracy to commit a misdemeanour because he was charged alone and the alleged co-conspirator was neither named nor charged.

Outcome

Appellant's convictions on two counts confirmed with one sentence reduced; appellant acquitted on two counts

Facts

The appellant worked as a lines assistant with Mutico, a sub-contractor for UMEME. He was approached by Lydia Baako to connect electricity to her residence in Kaddu Kaliti, Wakiso District, where the entire neighbourhood had no electricity. The appellant negotiated with the group collectively and told them he could do the connections for 8.5 million shillings. He was paid 6,750,000 shillings. He brought poles to the site and started planting them, but the electricity was never connected and the appellant became elusive and disappeared. When the complainant inquired with Mutico, she learned that the appellant had once been only a part-time employee and had not obtained an installation permit from UMEME. A Safety Manager from Mutico visited the site and found that the appellant had planted untreated, termite-infested poles that were not upright or supported by stay assemblies. The appellant was arrested and charged with four offences. He was convicted on all counts by the Chief Magistrate and sentenced to imprisonment. He appealed to the High Court.

Issues

  1. Whether the prosecution proved all ingredients of the offence of installation of electrical wiring without a permit contrary to s.88 of the Electricity Act.
  2. Whether the prosecution proved all ingredients of the offence of interference with electrical installations contrary to s.87 of the Electricity Act.
  3. Whether the prosecution proved all ingredients of the offence of obtaining money by false pretence contrary to s.305 of the Penal Code Act.
  4. Whether the prosecution proved all ingredients of the offence of conspiracy to commit a misdemeanour contrary to s.391 of the Penal Code Act.
  5. Whether the sentence imposed was manifestly harsh, excessive and illegal.
  6. Whether the trial magistrate properly took into account the time the appellant spent on remand.

Orders

  • The appellant is acquitted on counts 2 and 4.
  • The convictions on counts 1 and 3 are confirmed.
  • The sentence on count 1 is reduced to six months.
  • The sentence on count 3 is confirmed.

Rules and key headnotes

Criminal Law & Procedure — Appeal — First Appeal — Duty of First Appellate Court
The first appellate court has a duty to review the evidence and reconsider the materials before the trial judge, making up its own mind while carefully weighing and considering the judgment appealed from. When the question arises as to which witness should be believed and that question turns on manner and demeanour, the appellate court must be guided by the impressions made on the judge who saw the witnesses.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Electricity Act Offences — Installation without Permit — Elements
The elements of the offence of installation of electrical wiring without a permit under s.88 of the Electricity Act are: (i) installation of electrical wiring on premises, (ii) without a permit, and (iii) by the accused. Where the accused admitted to making wire connections, the connections were witnessed, and the relevant authority never issued a permit, all elements are proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Electricity Act Offences — Interference with Electrical Installations — Elements
The offence of interference with electrical installations under s.87 of the Electricity Act requires that there be an existing electrical installation to interfere with. Where there was no electricity connected in the area and the accused did not connect the electricity supply, the first element of the offence cannot stand and the accused must be acquitted.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Obtaining Money by False Pretence — Elements — False Pretence Defined
A false pretence under s.304 of the Penal Code Act is any representation made by words, writing or conduct, of a matter of fact, either past or present, which representation is false in fact, and which the person making it knows to be false or does not believe to be true. The elements of the offence under s.305 are: (a) the making of a false pretence, (b) the intention to defraud, (c) obtaining or inducing the delivery of anything capable of being stolen, and (d) that the accused is liable.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Conspiracy to Commit Misdemeanour — Requirement of Two Persons
Where there is a conspiracy, there must be a minimum of two persons. A conspiracy cannot be proved where only one perpetrator is named and charged. Where the accused is charged alone and the person(s) he is alleged to have conspired with are neither named nor charged, the charge of conspiracy cannot stand.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Sentencing — First Offender — Maximum Sentence
A first offender should not receive the maximum sentence provided by statute. Where an accused is a young first offender, a sentence at the maximum is manifestly harsh and should be reduced on appeal.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Sentencing — Remand Period — Constitutional Requirement
Article 23(8) of the Constitution requires that any period a convicted person spends in lawful custody in respect of the offence before the completion of trial be taken into account in imposing the term of imprisonment. Where a sentencing court has clearly demonstrated that it has taken into account the period spent on remand to the credit of the convict, the sentence will not be interfered with by the appellate court only because the sentencing judge missed to state that they deducted the period spent on remand. The remand period should be credited to the convict when sentenced to a term of imprisonment.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (4)

  • Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
  • Mattaka & Ors 1971EA 495 at 501
  • Abelle Asuman v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 66 of 2016)
  • Rwabugande

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Mukasa v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 17 of 2021) [2021] UGHCCRD 107 (2 May 2021)
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.