Wakilii

Uganda v Osilaje (Crim.Rev.No.182 of 1976)

High Court · [1976] UGHCCRD 2 · 1976 Revision Allowed — Conviction Quashed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal revision from lower court conviction
Decision
First accused's compensation order reduced from Shs.3,000/- to Shs.900/-; excess to be refunded. Second accused's conviction quashed and fine refunded.

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

Held: (1) The maximum compensation under s.121A(1) upon subsequent conviction is Shs.1,200/-, not Shs.3,000/- as ordered. (2) S.121A(3) creates no offence because 'elope' is undefined in that context, violating the constitutional requirement that offences be defined in written law. The second accused's conviction was therefore a nullity. (3) An unsigned charge sheet is improper. (4) The words 'not being his wife' were superfluous but occasioned no miscarriage of justice. Compensation order varied; second accused's conviction quashed.

Outcome

First accused's compensation order reduced from Shs.3,000/- to Shs.900/-; excess to be refunded. Second accused's conviction quashed and fine refunded.

Facts

The first accused was convicted on his own plea of elopement with a married woman contrary to s.121A(1) of the Penal Code. He was fined Shs.200/- and ordered to pay Shs.3,000/- compensation to the aggrieved husband, having admitted a previous similar conviction. The second accused, a married woman, was convicted on her plea of agreeing to elope contrary to s.121A(3), fined Shs.100/-, and admitted a previous similar conviction. Both fines were paid. The charge sheet was unsigned by a police officer. The particulars against the first accused stated he eloped with 'a married woman not being his wife.'

Issues

  1. Whether an order of compensation in the sum of Shs.3,000/- under s.121A(1) of the Penal Code was proper upon subsequent conviction.
  2. Whether s.121A(3) of the Penal Code creates any offence where the word 'elope' is not defined.
  3. Whether a charge sheet submitted by police but unsigned by a police officer is proper.
  4. Whether the words 'not being his wife' in the particulars of the charge were an irregularity that occasioned a miscarriage of justice.

Orders

  • Order to pay compensation of Shs.3,000/- set aside.
  • Order to pay compensation of Shs.900/- substituted.
  • Amount in excess of Shs.900/- to be refunded to 1st accused forthwith.
  • Conviction of 2nd accused under s.121A(3) quashed.
  • Sentence of 2nd accused set aside.
  • Fine of Shs.100/- to be refunded to 2nd accused forthwith.

Rules and key headnotes

Criminal Law — Elopement — Compensation — Maximum Amount on Subsequent Conviction
The maximum compensation that may be ordered under s.121A(1) of the Penal Code upon a subsequent conviction for elopement is Shs.1,200/-.
Criminal Procedure — Charges — Unsigned Charge Sheet
A charge sheet submitted by the police is neither proper nor complete if it is unsigned by a police officer. A magistrate is expected to read the charge sheet before taking a plea to ensure it is properly prepared and reveals an offence.
Criminal Procedure — Charges — Superfluous Words in Particulars
Where particulars of an elopement charge state the accused eloped with a married woman 'not being his wife,' the words 'not being his wife' are superfluous and meaningless as one cannot elope with one's own wife. However, such an irregularity occasions no miscarriage of justice where the accused pleads guilty.
Criminal Law — Elopement — Offence by Married Woman
Under s.121A(2) of the Penal Code, it is an offence for a married woman to elope with a married man, but not an offence for a married woman to elope with an unmarried man.
Statutory Interpretation — Undefined Terms — Criminal Offence
S.121A(3) of the Penal Code is meaningless because the word 'elope' in that subsection is not defined, and the subsection makes no reference to the marital status or sex of the parties. Where a criminal offence is not defined as required by article 15(8) of the Constitution, no person can be convicted of that offence.
Constitutional Law — Criminal Offences — Requirement of Definition in Written Law
Article 15(8) of the Constitution provides that no person shall be convicted of a criminal offence unless that offence is defined and the penalty prescribed in written law. A plea of guilty to a non-existent offence is a nullity.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (2)

  • Uganda v Solomon and Another [1971] EA 46
  • Uganda v Erusania Namudoko and Another (Criminal Revision No. 659 of 1971)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Uganda v Osilaje (Crim.Rev.No.182 of 1976) [1976] UGHCCRD 2 (23 December 1976)
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.