Wakilii

Nyeko & Another v Uganda (Criminal Revision 8 of 1992)

High Court · [1992] UGHC 81 · 1992 Convictions Quashed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal revision from Chief Magistrate's Court conviction for elopement
Decision
Both accused acquitted — convictions quashed and sentences set aside

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

Held that convictions for elopement under section 121A of the Penal Code Act were bad in law. Knowledge by the accused that the other party is married is an essential ingredient of the offence. The facts after the guilty plea did not disclose that the female accused caused or enticed the male accused to elope. Evidence did not establish that the male accused knew the female accused was married. Convictions quashed and sentences set aside.

Outcome

Both accused acquitted — convictions quashed and sentences set aside

Facts

Accused 1, Bernard Nyeko, was convicted of elopement contrary to section 121A(1) of the Penal Code Act. Accused 2, Amony Night, pleaded guilty to elopement contrary to section 121A(2). Both were first offenders. Accused 1 was sentenced to a fine of 200 shillings or two weeks imprisonment in default. Accused 2 was cautioned. No compensation order was made. The Senior Principal Magistrate sent the file for revision, arguing the convictions were bad in law because the facts did not reveal all essential ingredients and did not prove that Accused 1 knew Accused 2 was married. The evidence showed Accused 2 simply went to live with Accused 1 in his matrimonial home rather than causing him to run away.

Issues

  1. Whether the convictions for elopement were properly secured when the facts did not reveal all essential ingredients of the offence.
  2. Whether knowledge by the male accused that the female accused is married is an essential ingredient of the offence of elopement under section 121A(1) of the Penal Code Act.
  3. Whether the trial Magistrate erred in failing to make a mandatory compensation order under section 121A(1) of the Penal Code Act.

Orders

  • Convictions quashed.
  • Sentences set aside.
  • Any payment made by the accused by way of fine to be refunded forthwith.

Rules and key headnotes

Elopement — Essential Ingredients — Knowledge of Marital Status
Knowledge by the accused that the other party is married to another person is an essential ingredient of the offence of elopement under sections 121A(1) and 121A(2) of the Penal Code Act and must be proved beyond reasonable doubt or unequivocally admitted for a conviction to be properly secured.
Elopement — Essential Ingredients — Causing or Enticing to Elope
For a conviction under section 121A(2) of the Penal Code Act, it must be proved that the female accused caused or enticed the male accused to elope or run away with her. The mere fact that the female accused went to live with the male accused in his matrimonial home, without evidence of causing him to run away from that home, does not satisfy this essential ingredient.
Guilty Plea — Requirement for Valid Conviction
For a conviction to be properly secured on a plea of guilty, all essential ingredients of the offence alleged must be unequivocally admitted by the accused, and the facts narrated after the plea must disclose all essential ingredients of the offence. Where any essential ingredient is not disclosed or admitted, the conviction is bad in law.
Sentencing — Statutory Sentencing Powers
Section 121A(2) of the Penal Code Act prescribes a maximum sentence of twelve months imprisonment or a fine of not exceeding two hundred shillings on first conviction. While a caution is within the discretion of the magistrate to impose, it is not the only sentence prescribed by law.
Elopement — Compensation — Mandatory Order
Section 121A(1) of the Penal Code Act makes an order for compensation of six hundred shillings by the accused to the aggrieved party on first conviction mandatory. A trial magistrate's failure to make this mandatory order constitutes a failure to comply with the law.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (2)

  • Uganda v Olungu (Criminal Revision No. 429 of 1970)
  • Uganda v Fabiano and Another (Criminal Revision No. 503 of 1972)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nyeko & Another v Uganda (Criminal Revision 8 of 1992) [1992] UGHC 81 (5 November 1992)
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.