Wakilii

Buru and Another v Rex (Cr.A. 127-1934.)

East African Court of Appeal · [1937] EACA 183 · 1937 Conviction Quashed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal appeal from conviction for murder in the High Court of Kenya
Decision
Appellant acquitted

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

The Court held that a conviction for murder could not be sustained where the only evidence came from an accomplice and the unsworn testimony of a small child, both of whom required corroboration. A witness who himself requires corroboration cannot corroborate another witness, regardless of whether they fall into the same or different categories requiring corroboration. The conviction was quashed and the appellant acquitted.

Outcome

Appellant acquitted

Facts

The appellant was convicted of murder in the High Court of Kenya. The prosecution case rested entirely on two witnesses: a witness accepted as an accomplice and a small boy who gave unsworn testimony. Two accused were originally charged. The appellant applied for separate trials, which was granted. After three witnesses had been examined, a nolle prosequi was entered against the second accused, who then gave evidence. The trial judge believed the child to be truthful but acknowledged that both the accomplice and the unsworn child testimony required corroboration. The trial judge held that an accomplice's evidence could be corroborated by any person who is not an accomplice, including a child whose testimony is unsworn, and convicted the appellant of murder.

Issues

  1. Whether a conviction for murder could be sustained on the evidence of an accomplice and the unsworn testimony of a small child, where both witnesses themselves required corroboration.
  2. Whether a witness who himself requires corroboration can corroborate another witness who also requires corroboration.

Orders

  • Conviction quashed.
  • Appellant acquitted.

Rules and key headnotes

Evidence — Corroboration — Accomplice Evidence — Unsworn Child Testimony
A witness who himself requires corroboration cannot corroborate another witness who also requires corroboration, and it matters not whether the witnesses are in the same or a different category.
Evidence — Corroboration — Accomplice Evidence
Accomplices require corroboration because their evidence is regarded as unreliable, and the reasoning which logically renders one accomplice unable to corroborate another obtains equally as between an accomplice and a child giving unsworn testimony.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Murder — Conviction — Sufficiency of Evidence
A conviction for murder cannot be sustained where there is no independent corroboration of evidence from witnesses who themselves require corroboration.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (2)

  • Rex v Festo Mulaniago (Cr.A. 63 of 1933)
  • Rex v Festo Mulaniago (Cr.A. 63 of 1933)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Buru and Another v Rex (Cr.A. 127-1934.) [1937] EACA 183 (1 January 1937)
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.