Wakilii

Rex v Ocharo and Another (Con. C. 68-1931.)

East African Court of Appeal · [1931] EACA 29 · 1931 Appeal Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal confirmation from lower court conviction for stock theft and accessory after the fact
Decision
Second accused acquitted and discharged; first accused's conviction affirmed but remitted for proper sentencing

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

An accessory after the fact to stock theft is not liable to the statutory fine of ten times the value of the stock under the Stock and Produce Theft Ordinance because he is not guilty of theft as defined by that Ordinance. To be convicted as an accessory after the fact under section 369 of the Penal Code, there must be evidence that the accused received or assisted the principal offender in order to enable him to escape punishment.

Outcome

Second accused acquitted and discharged; first accused's conviction affirmed but remitted for proper sentencing

Facts

Accused I was convicted of stock theft. Accused II was convicted of being an accessory after the fact to the stock theft under section 369 of the Penal Code and sentenced to six months hard labour and a fine of Sh. 600, or in default three months hard labour. The evidence showed that accused II assisted accused I to drive the stolen stock, but there was no evidence that he received or assisted accused I in order to enable him to escape punishment. The Magistrate imposed part payment of the statutory fine of ten times the value of the stock on accused II.

Issues

  1. Whether an accessory after the fact to stock theft is liable to the statutory fine of ten times the value of the stock under the Stock and Produce Theft Ordinance.
  2. Whether the evidence established that the second accused was an accessory after the fact under section 369 of the Penal Code.

Orders

  • Conviction and sentence on accused II reversed.
  • Accused II ordered to be discharged from custody.
  • Conviction of accused I affirmed.
  • Sentence on accused I confirmed subject to the Magistrate having the accused before him and passing a sentence of fine according to the law.

Rules and key headnotes

Accessories After the Fact — Statutory Fines — Stock Theft
An accessory after the fact to stock theft is not liable to the statutory fine of ten times the value of the stock under the Stock and Produce Theft Ordinance because he is not guilty of theft as defined by that Ordinance.
Accessories After the Fact — Elements of Offence
The basis of an offence under sections 370 and 371 of the Penal Code is that the person charged assisted the principal offender to escape justice. To establish that an accused was an accessory after the fact under section 369, there must be evidence that he received or assisted the principal offender in order to enable him to escape punishment.

Legislation cited (4)

  • Penal Code s.369
  • Penal Code s.370
  • Penal Code s.371
  • Stock and Produce Theft Ordinance Cap. 79

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Rex v Ocharo and Another (Con. C. 68-1931.) [1931] EACA 29 (1 January 1931)
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.