Wakilii

Rex v Mugut (Cr. R. 44-1933.)

East African Court of Appeal · [1933] EACA 26 · 1933 Conviction Quashed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal revision from lower court conviction
Decision
Second accused acquitted and discharged; first accused conviction confirmed but free pardon recommended

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 entering a location armed with spears and clubs with intent to steal does not constitute an attempt to steal under the Penal Code. Mere intention to commit an offence, even when accompanied by preparatory acts such as arming oneself and travelling to the intended location, does not amount to an attempt. The conviction was quashed.

Outcome

Second accused acquitted and discharged; first accused conviction confirmed but free pardon recommended

Facts

The accused, a Nandi man, entered Kajulu Location in Central Kavirondo during January 1933 armed with spears and clubs with others, intending to steal. Upon arrival at the village, the villagers were awake and making noise. An alarm was raised and a pursuit ensued. No theft was committed. The first accused pleaded that he went to steal at night but the village was aroused and he did not steal anything. The second accused denied going to steal. The accused were charged with entering the location with intent to steal.

Issues

  1. Whether entering a location armed with intent to steal constitutes an attempt to steal under the Penal Code.
  2. At what stage does intention become attempt under sections 361 and 362 of the Penal Code.

Orders

  • Conviction against the second accused quashed.
  • Second accused ordered to be set at liberty.
  • Conviction against the first accused confirmed but court suggested he be granted a free pardon.

Rules and key headnotes

Criminal Law & Procedure — Attempt — Definition — Distinction between Intention and Attempt
Under the Penal Code, mere intention to commit an offence, even when accompanied by preparatory acts such as arming oneself and travelling to the intended location, does not constitute an attempt to commit that offence.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Attempt to Steal — Elements Required
Evidence showing only that an accused started forth armed with spears and clubs is insufficient to establish an attempt to steal where no overt act towards the commission of the theft was taken.
Statutory Interpretation — Penal Code — Sections 361 and 362 — Meaning of Attempt
The question of at what stage intention becomes attempt under sections 361 and 362 of the Penal Code requires more than preparatory acts; there must be conduct that goes beyond mere preparation and constitutes a direct movement towards commission of the offence.

Legislation cited (3)

  • Penal Code s.361
  • Penal Code s.362
  • Penal Code s.255

Cases cited (1)

  • Rex v Kanjeri and Karombi (E.A.L.R. Vol. 6, p. 69)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Rex v Mugut (Cr. R. 44-1933.) [1933] EACA 26 (1 January 1933)
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.