Wakilii

Runyenje v Regina (Criminal Appeal No. 805 of 1952)

East African Court of Appeal · [1953] EACA 20 · 1953 Appeal Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal appeal from conviction on five counts under the Penal Code
Decision
Appellant convicted under section 303(c) Penal Code and sentenced to two years imprisonment with hard labour. Convictions on other counts 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

Convictions under sections 76, 394, 303(b) and 334(7)(g) of the Penal Code set aside. Conviction under section 303(c) upheld. Held that conviction under section 303(b) requires proof of intent to break into a particular building, not general intent. Under section 303(c), the offence consists merely of possession of housebreaking implements without lawful excuse, without proof of immediate felonious purpose. Where several persons are found together at night for the common purpose of housebreaking and only one possesses the implements, all may be convicted under section 303(c) as the possession of one is the possession of all.

Outcome

Appellant convicted under section 303(c) Penal Code and sentenced to two years imprisonment with hard labour. Convictions on other counts set aside.

Facts

On 30 September 1952, a lorry carrying 16 persons was stopped at night in Embu District by a district officer. The lorry's number plate was concealed with whitewash and the passengers were lying down behind side panels. The lorry had been taken by the driver contrary to his employer's instructions. Knives and iron bars were found the next day near where the lorry was stopped. Earlier that evening, the lorry had been seen at Ruyenjes trading centre. When pursued by a car, the lorry was deliberately reversed into the car causing extensive damage. The appellant was one of nine occupants charged with five offences: unlawful assembly, conspiracy to commit burglary or housebreaking, being found armed at night with intent to break into a building, possession of housebreaking implements, and malicious damage to property. All nine were convicted on all counts.

Issues

  1. Whether the appellant was properly convicted of taking part in an unlawful assembly under section 77 of the Penal Code where no common purpose was set out in the particulars.
  2. Whether the appellant was properly convicted of conspiracy to commit felony under section 394 of the Penal Code where no felony was specified in the particulars.
  3. Whether a conviction under section 303(b) of the Penal Code requires proof of intent to break into a particular building or whether proof of general intent to break into houses is sufficient.
  4. Whether proof of particular intent to commit felony is necessary for conviction under section 303(c) of the Penal Code for possession of housebreaking implements.
  5. Whether possession of housebreaking implements by one member of a group engaged in a common purpose of housebreaking constitutes possession by all members of the group.
  6. Whether passengers in a lorry could be convicted of malicious damage to property where the driver backed the lorry into a car on the spur of the moment.

Orders

  • Appeal on count 1 (unlawful assembly) allowed. Conviction set aside.
  • Appeal on count 2 (conspiracy) allowed. Conviction set aside.
  • Appeal on count 3 (section 303(b)) allowed. Conviction set aside.
  • Appeal on count 4 (section 303(c)) dismissed. Conviction and sentence upheld.
  • Appeal on count 5 (malicious damage) allowed. Conviction set aside.
  • Appellant to serve two years imprisonment with hard labour under count 4.

Rules and key headnotes

Unlawful Assembly — Common Purpose — Requirement to Specify in Particulars
A conviction for taking part in an unlawful assembly under section 77 of the Penal Code cannot stand where no common purpose is set out in the particulars of the charge, even if the common purpose was meant to be burglary or housebreaking.
Conspiracy — Requirement to Specify Felony in Particulars
A conviction for conspiracy to commit felony under section 394 of the Penal Code cannot stand where no felony is set out in the particulars of the charge.
Section 303(b) Penal Code — Intent to Break into Particular Building Required
Before there can be a conviction under section 303(b) of the Penal Code for being found armed by night with intent to break into a building, it is necessary to prove that the accused had the intent of breaking into or entering some particular building, and proof of a general intent to break into houses is insufficient.
Section 303(c) Penal Code — Possession of Housebreaking Implements — No Proof of Immediate Felonious Purpose Required
Where it is proved that an accused person is found in possession by night without lawful excuse of any implement of housebreaking contrary to section 303(c) of the Penal Code, the offence is complete without proof of any immediate purpose of committing felony. The offence consists merely of possession without lawful excuse.
Section 303(c) Penal Code — Common Possession — Possession of One is Possession of All
Where several persons are found together at night for the common purpose of housebreaking and only one is in possession of the housebreaking implements, all may be found guilty of an offence under section 303(c) of the Penal Code, for the possession of one, in such case, is the possession of all.
Malicious Damage to Property — Common Purpose — Spur of Moment Decision
Where a driver of a lorry carrying multiple passengers backs the lorry into a car on the spur of the moment, the other passengers cannot be convicted of malicious damage to property in the absence of proof of incitement or that they had so identified themselves with the action of the driver that they shared the common purpose.

Legislation cited (9)

  • Penal Code s.76
  • Penal Code s.77
  • Penal Code s.394
  • Penal Code s.303(b)
  • Penal Code s.303(c)
  • Penal Code s.334(1)
  • Penal Code s.334(7)(g)
  • Larceny Act 1916 s.28(1)
  • Larceny Act 1916 s.28(2)

Cases cited (3)

  • R v Jarrald and Ost (1861-4) 9 Cox Cr C 307
  • R v Bailey (1852-5) 6 Cox Cr C 241
  • R v Thompson (1867-71) 11 Cox Cr C 362

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Runyenje v Regina (Criminal Appeal No. 805 of 1952) [1953] EACA 20 (1 January 1953)
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.