Law Applicable:
• The Penal Code Act
• Common Law
• Case Law
Issues Raised:
• Whether Zara is liable for the offence of theft of an umbrella belonging to Jackie
• Whether Zara is liable for the offence of theft of a purse
• Whether Zara is liable for the offence of theft of an iPhone an umbrella belonging to
Jackie
Resolution of Issues
Issue 1
Section 254(1) PCA defines theft as a fraudulent taking or conversion to use and without claim
of right anything capable of being stolen of any person other than the general or special owner
thereof.
The objective of the offence of theft is to prevent prejudice or unlawfulappropriation of property
belonging to other persons. In R v Williams1, Court held that on a charge of theft it was
necessary to prove a fraudulent taking or conversion without a claim of right, and a person was
deemed to have taken or converted money fraudulently if he did so without a claim or right and
with an intent to use it at his will, even if he intended afterwards to repay the amount to the
owner.
Thus, Zara took the umbrella without the claim of right and didn’t even return it afterwards, thus
liable for the offence of theft on conviction and imprisonment not exceeding 10 years.
1 (1953)1 All ER 1068.
Issue 2
Section 254(2) PCA, a person commits an offence of theft with intent to use it at the will of
the person who takes or converts it, even though may intend afterwards to repay the amount to
the owner. In Kifuuko V R2, the accused working at a post office took a parcel from a foreign
parcel lock and put them locker parcels rack, the issue was whether he was guilty of theft. It was
held that if the accused removed an article from one place to another with the intent of depriving
the owner permanently commits the offence of theft.
Thus, with the instant facts, Zara had the intentionally deprive the lady who owned the purse
running away and therefore liable on conviction for the offence of theft and imprisonment not
exceeding 10 years.
Issue 3
Section 254 PCA provides that a person who fraudulently and without claim of right takes
anything capable of being stolen, or fraudulently converts to the use of any person other than the
general or special owner thereof anything capable of being stolen, is said to steal that thing. In
Matovu v Uganda3 a graduation party was organised for three children in Kitala. The appellant
walked into the host’s house with the clergy officiating at the function. It was assumed by the he
had come with the clergy while the clergy thought he was a member of the household. The
appellant then stole a computer – laptop, a Techno phone and escaped. He was later arrested at
another function where he was said to be stealing in the same manner and charged on these
counts, the appellant court upheld the conviction of theft in the lower courts.
Therefore, Zara fraudulently stole an iPhone and is liable on conviction for the offence of theft
contrary to section 254PCA and imprisonment not exceeding 10 years,
2
(1971)EA 413
3
[2021] UGHCCRD 100