Wakilii

Kedi Martin v Uganda [2002] UGSC 27

Supreme Court · 2002 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Second criminal appeal to the Supreme Court from a Court of Appeal decision upholding a High Court conviction for murder
Decision
Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence for murder upheld

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment

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 Supreme Court dismissed the second appeal against a murder conviction. It held that a confession made to local council officials is not governed by section 24 of the Evidence Act (which applies only to a person in police custody) but by section 25, which renders a confession admissible if made voluntarily, and by section 29A, which admits information leading to the discovery of a fact. Although the trial judge failed to recognise the confession as retracted and did not caution himself, and the Court of Appeal wrongly treated the confession as corroborated, neither error occasioned a miscarriage of justice. The appellant's unprompted, detailed disclosure leading to discovery of the body established that the confession was true.

Facts

The appellant was convicted by the High Court of the murder of his step-father, Dongan Victor. On 31 March 1998 the deceased went to the market and did not return. The next morning the appellant reported to Opedor (PW2), an LC1 Secretary for Defence, that he had killed his step-father the previous day. Opedor arrested him and took him to the LC1 Chairman, Ajolo Emmanuel (PW3), to whom the appellant repeated that he had killed the deceased, said to be a wizard who had killed his people. He explained that he had way-laid the deceased on the way from the market and strangled him, and described where he had left the body. Following this information the body was discovered at the described location with a broken neck. The appellant did not challenge the confession or cross-examine the witnesses at trial, but in his unsworn defence statement denied the killing and claimed he admitted it only after being beaten by PW2 and another man.

Issues

  1. Whether the appellant's reports to local council officials amounted to a confession that was admissible in evidence.
  2. Whether a confession made to a local council official is governed by section 24 of the Evidence Act (custody of a police officer) or by section 25 (voluntariness).
  3. Whether the conviction could stand where the trial judge failed to treat the confession as retracted and to caution himself on the danger of convicting on an uncorroborated retracted confession.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.

Key headnotes

Evidence — Confessions — Confession to local council official — Whether governed by Evidence Act s.24 or s.25
Section 24 of the Evidence Act applies only to a confession made by a person in the custody of a police officer; a confession made to a local council official, who is not a police officer, is governed by section 25 and is admissible if shown to have been made voluntarily.
Evidence — Confessions — Information leading to discovery of a fact — Evidence Act s.29A
Section 29A of the Evidence Act is permissive and renders admissible, notwithstanding sections 24 and 25, so much of any information received from an accused person, including a confession, as distinctly leads to the discovery of a material fact deposed to at trial as so discovered.
Evidence — Retracted confession — Corroboration — Duty of court to caution itself
A court should not base a conviction on an uncorroborated retracted confession unless it cautions itself about the danger of doing so.
Evidence — Corroboration — Discovery of body as described in confession — Whether corroborative
Corroboration of a retracted confession requires independent evidence tending to confirm that the confession was made or otherwise to implicate the accused; the discovery of the body in the condition and place described in the confession is not corroboration as so defined, though it confirms the credibility and truth of the confession.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Appeal — Misdirection or non-direction not occasioning a miscarriage of justice
A conviction will not be set aside on appeal where a non-direction by the trial judge or a misdirection by the appellate court, though established, occasioned no miscarriage of justice.

Legislation cited (3)

  • Evidence Act s.24
  • Evidence Act s.25
  • Evidence Act s.29A

Cases cited (5)

  • Babyebuza Swaibu v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 47 of 2000)
  • Festo Androa & Another v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1998)
  • Tuwamoi v Uganda (1967) EA 84
  • Cpl Wasswa & Another v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 48 of 1999)
  • R v Baskerville [1916-17] All ER Rep 38
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.