Self-defence
According to section 15 of the PCA, Principles of English law apply when a person raises self-defence.
For the person to raise the defence, he must show that he had a bonafide belief or reasonable ground that there was a need for reasonable violence which he or she could not prevent except by the use of force.
According to the case of Yhefusa K. Mamali versus Uganda, Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No.29 of 1989, it was held:-
Under English law, there is a broad distinction made where questions of self-defence arise.
In cases of self-defence where no violent felony is attempted, a person is entitled to use reasonable force against an assault.
If he is reasonably in the apprehension of serious injury provided he does all that he is able in the circumstances, by retreat or otherwise to break off the fight or avoid assault, he may use such force, including deadly forces as is reasonable in the circumstances.
Also Read: Intoxication Defence
For the defence to stand, the accused must meet the following conditions;
The accused must establish that he had reasonable ground for fear of violence.
In the case of Uganda V Sebastian Otti (1994-95) HCB 21, Okello J it was held that to constitute self-defence, there must have been an unlawful attack on the accused who as a result reasonably believed that he was in imminent danger or serious bodily harm and it was necessary for him to use force to repel attack made on him.
The person must have acted reasonably
Attorney-General for Nyasaland v Jackson (1957) R & N 443 the accused had been away from his village for two years. He came back when he heard of his brother's death in inexplicable circumstances.
He also discovered that his eldest relative, the deceased had not brewed the traditional beer as required by custom following death.
The deceased was rude to the accused and she threatened that he (the accused) would not see the sun that day.
That threat made the accused brood for some hours and he later reached the conclusion that it was a case of witchcraft. He then decided that before the sunset he should kill the deceased or he would die as a result of her threat which he honestly believed to be witchcraft.
He, therefore, took a bow and arrow and shot her in the stomach, and then struck her four blows on the head with a hoe. She died as a result of the injuries she sustained.
In dismissing self-defence, the court said: " to justify killing in self-defence the belief in the reality of the danger must not only be genuine, but it must also be reasonable.
The test of reasonableness in itself implies an objective test. In considering whether a man's belief is genuine, the belief must obviously be examined subjectively.
But to answer the question of whether or not a belief is reasonable, the test must equally obviously be an external standard.
The test of reasonableness is one that is constantly being invoked in English law.
In applying it, the standard is what would appear reasonable to an ordinary man in the street in England.
Also Read: Defence of Alibi
The Accused may also Prove Aspects of Provocation.
In Hau S/o Akonaay v R. (1954) 21 E.A.C.A. 276
the accused quarrelled with the deceased. The quarrel was followed by a fight in which the deceased was killed. The accused was armed only with a stick.
The Deceased was armed with a stick and a spear. The accused got in the first blow.
The Eastern Africa Court of Appeal held that it is immaterial in such cases which party offers the provocation or commits the first assault and that in the case there existed elements both of self-defence and provocation, and that the inference of malice aforethought was rebutted by the circumstances, it matters little whether the acts be regarded as done in excess of self defence or under the stress of provocation.
See the case of Byabagambi v Uganda Criminal Appeal No. 16 of 2002
The other condition is whether or not the accused had other means of defending himself.
For example, if the accused had a chance to move away but the deceased followed him. If the accused didn't retreat, the defence cannot stand.
The amount of force used must be proportionate to the force used by the victim.
There was a misunderstanding between the appellant and the deceased because of land belonging to the deceased's father and Local Council officials decided the dispute in favor of the deceased.
A child of the deceased became ill and he suspected that the child was bewitched by the appellant. The deceased send a message to the appellant "Go and tell him (appellant) that I am coming there to cut all of you."
The deceased followed the threatening message by demanding a panga. Soon the deceased appeared at the appellant's home and a hot argument ensued between the two.
The deceased was cut with and died instantly. During the trial, the appellant claimed that he killed the deceased in self-defence. He was convicted of murder. His appeal to the court of appeal was dismissed.
On appeal to the Supreme Court, it was held that although the appellant was entitled to use force to defend both himself and his home and that a successful defence of self-defense in homicide cases would lead to the acquittal of an accused.
However, because of the two injuries inflicted on the deceased as revealed in this case by the post mortem report, the force used by the appellant was excessive but not so excessive as to remove the defence of self-defence from the appellant.
The conviction for murder was quashed and substituted manslaughter.