Wakilii

Tushabe Prossy and Another v Uganda (HCT -11-CR-SC –NO.007 OF 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 1056 · 2025 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal appeal from conviction by Kabale Chief Magistrate's Court
Decision
Appellants' convictions for criminal trespass and malicious damage to property upheld; sentences imposed by Chief Magistrate's Court affirmed

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 High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction and sentence for criminal trespass and malicious damage to property. The appellants failed to establish an honest bona fide claim of right under Section 7 of the Penal Code Act, having admitted in testimony they had no proof the land was given to them and acknowledged their grandmother had gifted it to the complainant. The prosecution proved all ingredients of both offences beyond reasonable doubt, including unlawful entry, possession by the complainant, and intentional destruction of banana plants.

Outcome

Appellants' convictions for criminal trespass and malicious damage to property upheld; sentences imposed by Chief Magistrate's Court affirmed

Facts

The appellants were convicted by Kabale Chief Magistrate's Court of criminal trespass and malicious damage to property. On 30 September 2016, at Nyamabare village in Kabale District, the appellants entered land belonging to Agnes Matsiko, the complainant, and cut down six banana plants. The complainant and appellants are paternal cousins. The complainant received the land as a gift from their grandmother, documented in a written agreement witnessed by PW3 Joy Rukampena and PW4 Robinah Birakwate. The appellants claimed the land was family land and that their grandmother had no right to give it away. Both appellants admitted in testimony they had no written proof the land was given to them and acknowledged their grandmother had made the decision to gift the land to the complainant. Neither appellant denied cutting the banana plants.

Issues

  1. Whether the learned Trial Magistrate erred in law and fact when she ignored the appellants' bona fide claim of right defence.
  2. Whether the learned Trial Magistrate erred in law and fact when she convicted the appellants of the offence of malicious damage to property.
  3. Whether the learned Trial Magistrate failed to properly evaluate the ingredients of the offence of criminal trespass and malicious damage to property.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Conviction affirmed.
  • Sentence affirmed.

Rules and key headnotes

Criminal Law & Procedure — Bona Fide Claim of Right — Section 7 Penal Code Act — Requirements for Defence
A person is not criminally responsible for an offence relating to property if the act was done in exercise of an honest claim of right and without intention to defraud under Section 7 of the Penal Code Act. An accused who admits having no proof that land was given to them and acknowledges that their grandmother gifted the land to the complainant has not established an honest bona fide claim of right.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Criminal Trespass — Ingredients of Offence — Section 282(a) Penal Code Act
The ingredients of criminal trespass under Section 282(a) of the Penal Code Act are: (1) actual entry by the accused; (2) the complainant must be in possession at the time of entry; (3) the entry must be unlawful; and (4) there must be intent to intimidate, annoy or commit a crime against the person in actual possession. Actions that clearly annoy the complainant, such as cutting their banana plants, satisfy the intent element.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Malicious Damage to Property — Ingredients of Offence — Section 312(1) Penal Code Act
The ingredients of malicious damage to property under Section 312(1) of the Penal Code Act are: (1) the property belonging to the complainant was damaged or destroyed; (2) the property was damaged or destroyed through wilful and unlawful actions; and (3) the property was damaged or destroyed by the accused persons. Where accused persons do not deny cutting down banana plants and witnesses corroborate the destruction, all ingredients are satisfied.
Land & Property — Constructive Possession — Possession Through Agent
A person can be in possession of land through constructive possession where another person occupies or manages the land at their bequest. Where a witness is left in charge of land by the owner, the owner retains possession through the doctrine of constructive possession.
Land & Property — Family Land — Assertion of Rights — Proper Forum
While the definition of family land under the Land Act protects family members from unilateral disposal decisions by protecting their right to use and occupy land, successful assertion of these claims must be made in court, not through unilateral actions such as trespass and destruction of property.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (4)

  • Kifamunte v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
  • Opio Enrico v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 2014)
  • Korokoni & 3 others v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 013 of 2015)
  • Muwanga Angelo & another v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 2009)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Tushabe Prossy and Another v Uganda (HCT -11-CR-SC –NO.007 OF 2025) [2025] UGHC 1056 (3 October 2025)
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.