Wakilii

Rex v Mughuira and Others (Criminal Appeals Nos. 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 and 131 of 1943 (Consolidated))

East African Court of Appeal · [1943] EACA 34 · 1943 Appeals Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Consolidated criminal appeals from convictions for murder in the High Court of Tanganyika
Decision
All nine appellants' convictions for murder 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

Nine persons who formed the common intention to commit burglary are all equally guilty of murder where one of them killed the householder who resisted, even though only one was armed. The enterprise was unlawful, resistance by the owner was probable, and overcoming such resistance by violence if necessary would probably be resorted to by the burglars, bringing all accused within the doctrine of common intention under section 22 of the Penal Code.

Outcome

All nine appellants' convictions for murder upheld

Facts

During a famine, nine men formed the common intention to burgle a house and set out on a six-hour journey to carry out the plan. The first accused carried a spear. Upon arrival, four entered the yard while others waited. The householder, aroused by noise, fired an arrow from inside, grazing one burglar's head. The first accused then jabbed his spear through a gap in the wall, killing the householder. The burglars proceeded to strip the house bare of goods before leaving. All accused admitted the burglary but denied any intention to murder. The trial court convicted all nine of murder.

Issues

  1. Whether all nine accused persons who formed the common intention to commit burglary are equally guilty of murder where only one of them, who was armed with a spear, killed the householder during the burglary.

Orders

  • Appeals dismissed.

Rules and key headnotes

Murder — Common Intention — Section 22 Penal Code — Joint Criminal Enterprise
Where several persons form the common intention to commit an unlawful act such as burglary, and in the execution of that common intention one of them commits murder to overcome the owner's resistance, all participants are equally guilty of murder under the doctrine of common intention even if only one was armed.
Murder — Common Intention — Probable Consequences of Joint Enterprise
In determining liability under common intention, the court may properly consider that resistance by the owner of premises being burgled is a probable consequence, and that the burglars would probably resort to violence to overcome such resistance if necessary, thereby bringing all participants within the doctrine of common intention.
Assessors' Opinions — Weight to be Given
Where assessors express definite and reasoned opinions that accused persons acted with common intention, an appellate court will not interfere with such findings unless they are shown to be unreasonable on the evidence.

Legislation cited (1)

  • Penal Code s.22

Cases cited (2)

  • Rex v Chebiegon and Another (15 K.L.R. 100)
  • Ruben's case, 2 Cr. A.R. 163

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Rex v Mughuira and Others (Criminal Appeals Nos. 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 and 131 of 1943 (Consolidated)) [1943] EACA 34 (1 January 1943)
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.