THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KABALE UNIVERSITY
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 39 OF 2025
April 9, 2025
UGANDA………………………………………………………………PROSECUTOR
VERSUS
TAREMWA FRANK……………………………………………………ACCUSED
OPENING STATEMENT
My lord, the case before us today is a serious one. The defendant is accused of threatening violence, a
crime undermines the very fabric of our society. We are in court today to demonstrate that the accused’s
actions and words were not a mere idle threats, but a clear and deliberate attempt to intimidate and harm
another individual.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
On the 11th day of February 2023, Mr. Alfred Nyesiga, was on his way to the garden when he was
confronted by the accused Mr. Frank. In an act witnessed by several people, the accused seized an axe
from Mr. Omara and while holding it in close range to Mr. Alfred Nyesiga, threatened “I will kill you”.
This incident occurred amid ongoing tensions over land boundaries and was subsequently reported to the
local authorities.
ISSUES
[Link] the accused’s actions amounted to threatening violence contrary to section 77 of the penal
code act cap 128?
[Link] the accused’s actions are justifiable?
LAW APPLICABLE
[Link] 1995 constitution of Uganda as amended
2. The penal code act cap 128
[Link] law
RESOLUTION OF ISSUES
[Link] the accused’s actions amounted to threatening violence contrary to section 77 of the
penal code act cap 128?
Article 28(3)(a) of the constitution provides that every person who is charged with a criminal offence
shall be presumed to be innocent until proved guilty or until that person has pleaded guilty.
1
It should also be noted that it is a criminal offence for someone to threaten to injure or damage property.
if one intended to frighten or intimidate you or knew that these were kind of threats likely to frighten or
intimidate any person.
Section 77 of the penal code act cap 128 provides that any person who with intent to intimidate or annoy
any person, threatens to injure, assault, shoot or kill any person or to burn, break any property or with
intent to alarm any person, discharge of fire arm or commits any breach of peace commits an offence and
is liable to imprisonment for a period of not exceeding four years.
Just like any other criminal offence, threatening violence also has its ingredients and these were stated in
the case of Alupo v Uganda [2012] UGHC 218, where the prosecution stated all the ingredients of
threatening violence, a) the accused should have caused the threat. b) intention to annoy or intimidate or
cause alarm to any person. The conviction here was quashed because there was no enough evidence.
However, in the case of Acaya v Uganda HCCA NO.0010 OF 2018, It was stated that mere words are
not enough to cause threat but they should be coupled with an action causing imminent threat of harm .it
was further stated that the intention to intimidate may be gathered from utterances, conduct and
surrounding circumstances.
Eye witness one
Shall explain action at the scene (Mr. Omara)
From our facts the accused’s deliberate act of arming himself with an axe and advancing on to our client
while uttering a death threat “I will kill you” fits squarely within the established parameters for
threatening violence. As the eye witnesses have submitted.
[Link] the accused’s actions are justifiable?
Section 15 of the penal code act cap 128 provides for the defence of a person or property and this allows
reasonable force to be used in self defence when faced with imminent danger thus frank’s act of grabbing
an axe was unproportionate because our client at that material time was not in any action to call for such a
response.
According to the facts of our case the accused’s actions were unjustified as he acted aggressively towards
Mr. Nyesiga whose actions would not call for such reaction. However, the evidence indicates that there
was no immediate threat warranting such a response from Mr. frank to our client Mr. [Link] the eye
witnesses.
For one to base on self defence he/she should be able to prove that they were in a great danger and that
their actions were necessary to protect themselves from the threat.
In the case of R v Martin (Anthony Edward) [2001] EWCA Criminal case no. 2245 the court held that
a claim of self defence must be supported by clear evidence of an imminent and unlawful attack. The
accused’s proactive escalation by seizing an axe and issuing a death threat does not satisfy this test.
Eye witness two
Shall explain the state that frank was in at the time of the action (miss lyn)
The evidence shows that the accused was the aggressor not the victim and that his response was neither
necessary nor proportionate to any perceived threat.
2
According to the consultations and investigations that we made together with the chair person, Mr. frank
was mentally fine and has no record of mental health and at the time of action he was very sober.
Therefore, he was very much aware of what he was doing.
Even if the facts acknowledge pre-existing tensions between the two parties, they do not justify the use of
a dangerous weapon to issue an unequivocal threat of death. Therefore, the accused’s actions were
aggressive and disproportionate, thereby rendering any claim of justification untenable.
PRAYERS
We pray that this honorable court be pleased to;
[Link] the accused guilty of threatening violence under section 77 of the penal code act cap 128.
[Link] an appropriate punishment as provided for under section 77 of the penal code act cap 128.
PREPARED BY
Manige Rugambwa Darius and Mbabazi Rhodah
STATE PROSECUTORS.
3
Mr. Frank holding an axe towards Mr. Alfred captured by Mr. Omara who witnessed
the scenario.