Wakilii

Apaliya and Others v Reginam (Criminal Appeal No. 38 of 1956)

East African Court of Appeal · [1956] EACA 496 · 1950 Appeal Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal appeal from conviction for murder by the High Court of Uganda
Decision
First appellant's conviction quashed; second and third appellants' convictions for murder upheld

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

A statement made by an accused when charged with the murder of one victim is admissible on the hearing of a charge for the murder of a different victim killed in the same incident, as it is relevant to the question of guilt. The test is whether the statement bears on the question of guilt in the charge being tried. The Court applied R v Evans and held the statement admissible. The appeal was allowed for the first appellant due to unsafe identification evidence, but dismissed for the second and third appellants.

Outcome

First appellant's conviction quashed; second and third appellants' convictions for murder upheld

Facts

Three Karamojong appellants were charged with murder arising from a large-scale cattle raid against the Suk in April 1955. During the raid, a large body of armed Karamojong drove off hundreds of cattle. Ten or eleven Suk owners followed the raiders for 18 miles until they were ambushed. In the ensuing fight, three Suk were killed, including the deceased Changuri. The appellants were arrested days later, each suffering from wounds. The second appellant made a cautioned statement admitting participation in the fight and cattle theft when initially charged with murdering a different victim, Ayereyang. Charges were initially withdrawn for lack of identification evidence. An identification parade was held on 4 June at Moroto Prison. Four Suk witnesses purported to identify the appellants, despite having told police shortly after the raid that they could not identify any raiders. The appellants had been detained in hospital where Suk witnesses were also present. Three separate indictments were preferred, one for each murder. The Crown proceeded first on the indictment for Changuri's murder.

Issues

  1. Whether a statement made by an accused when charged with the murder of one person is admissible on the hearing of a charge in respect of the murder of a different person killed in the same incident.
  2. Whether the identification evidence was sufficiently reliable to sustain convictions where witnesses had initially stated they could not identify any raiders.
  3. Whether the first appellant's conviction was safe given the distinguishing feature of his visible facial wound and his explanation for it.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed as regards the first appellant.
  • Convictions of the second and third appellants affirmed.
  • Appeals of the second and third appellants dismissed.

Rules and key headnotes

Evidence — Admissibility — Extra-judicial statements — Statement made when charged with one murder admissible on trial for different murder in same incident
Where an accused is charged with multiple murders arising from a single incident and separate indictments are preferred for each murder, a statement made by the accused when charged with the murder of one victim is admissible on the trial for the murder of a different victim if the statement is relevant and bears on the question of whether the accused is guilty of the murder being tried.
Evidence — Identification — Weight to be given to identification evidence where witnesses initially stated inability to identify and accused had distinguishing visible wound
Where identifying witnesses initially told police they could not recognize any of a large group of attackers, and the accused bears a visible distinguishing feature such as a facial wound that would make him easily identifiable at a parade, little or no weight should be given to subsequent identification evidence, particularly where the accused's appearance had materially altered between the incident and the identification parade.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Common intention — Participants in cattle raid with common intention to kill or disable those who interfere
Where a large group of armed raiders organize a cattle raid and ambush those who follow to recover the cattle, killing some of them, the raiders have a common intention to steal cattle and to kill, disable or repel anyone who interferes, and each participant may be held liable for murders committed in furtherance of that common intention.
Evidence — Identification parades — Necessity for care and proper recording — Importance of interpreter and supervising officer testimony
In cases turning on identification, courts are entitled to expect all possible assistance regarding both identification procedures and interpretation. The absence of testimony from the interpreter or other persons who assisted at an identification parade is an unfortunate omission, especially where the supervising officer is also unavailable to give evidence, as events or words whose ultimate significance cannot be appreciated at the time may prove of utmost importance.

Cases cited (1)

  • R v Evans (34 Cr App R 72)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Apaliya and Others v Reginam (Criminal Appeal No. 38 of 1956) [1950] EACA 496 (1 January 1950)
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.