Wakilii

Mango v Queen (Criminal Appeal No. 211 of 1955)

East African Court of Appeal · [1955] EACA 280 · 1955 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal appeal from conviction for official corruption by a resident magistrate
Decision
Conviction for official corruption upheld on appeal

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 giver of a bribe is technically an accomplice in the offence of receiving it unless acting under threat of death or grievous bodily harm. However, where the giver is not a willing participant but acts under pressure which would take firmness to resist, the rule of corroboration does not apply strictly and only a slight degree of corroboration is sufficient. Although the trial magistrate failed to direct himself on the danger of convicting without corroboration, the appellate court will not upset the conviction where no failure of justice has occurred.

Outcome

Conviction for official corruption upheld on appeal

Facts

The appellant, a sergeant in the Kenya Police Reserve, was convicted on four counts of official corruption. On 1 February 1955, he stopped Kimani Kathunje returning from a lavatory with a lamp, arrested him for alleged curfew breaking, and demanded Sh. 60. Kimani paid Sh. 30 and was released. On 13 February 1955, the appellant asked Mugi Gitukunya to watch his bicycle, then returned and arrested him for curfew breaking, demanding Sh. 60. Mugi paid Sh. 6 immediately and promised the balance later. When Mugi did not pay the balance, the appellant arrested him again and took him to the police station. Both complainants reported the incidents on 15 February 1955. The appellant was convicted on the uncorroborated evidence of the two complainants. The defence rested principally on wrong identification.

Issues

  1. Whether the givers of bribes to a police officer who demanded money under threat of arrest should be regarded as accomplices.
  2. Whether corroboration is required for the evidence of bribe-givers who acted under pressure rather than as willing participants.
  3. Whether a conviction based on uncorroborated evidence of accomplices should be upheld where the trial magistrate failed to direct himself on the danger of convicting without corroboration.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.

Rules and key headnotes

Evidence — Accomplice Evidence — Bribe-Giver as Accomplice — Definition
The giver of a bribe is, at least technically, an accomplice in the offence of receiving it, unless he acts under the threat of death or grievous bodily harm within section 17 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Evidence — Accomplice Evidence — Corroboration — Degree Required Where Bribe Extorted
Where the giver of a bribe is not a willing participant in the offence but acts under a form of pressure which it would take some firmness to resist, the rule of corroboration does not apply strictly and a very slight degree of corroboration is sufficient.
Evidence — Accomplice Evidence — Judicial Direction — Necessity
Corroboration is without doubt desirable but, if there is none, it is very desirable that the court of first instance should have been directed or directed itself as to the danger of convicting without corroboration.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Appeals — Failure to Direct on Accomplice Evidence — Appellate Court Discretion
Where the giver of a bribe is not a willing participant and has acted under a form of pressure which it would take some firmness to resist, even if there is no corroboration and the magistrate has not given himself a proper direction, an appellate court will not necessarily upset a conviction if it appears that no failure of justice has in fact occurred.

Legislation cited (7)

  • Penal Code s.93(1)
  • Indian Evidence Act 1872 s.114
  • Indian Evidence Act 1872 s.133
  • Criminal Procedure Code s.17
  • Penal Code s.94
  • Penal Code s.213
  • Penal Code s.384

Cases cited (10)

  • Davies v Director of Public Prosecutions [1954] 1 All ER 507 (HL)
  • Queen Empress v Chagan Dagaram (1890) ILR 14 Bom 331
  • Queen Empress v Maganlal and Motilal (1890) ILR 14 Bom 115
  • Mirza s/o Karma v R (1907) 2 EALR 81
  • Akhoy Kumar Chuckerbutty v Jagat Chander Chuckerbutty (1900) ILR 27 Cal 925
  • Deo Nandan Pershad v Emperor (1906) ILR 33 Cal 649
  • Ramaswami Gounden v Emperor (1904) ILR 27 Mad 271
  • Naryanaswa,ni Naidu and Others v. Emperor, Mad. Cr. App. Nos 26, 28 and 33 of 1903 (unreported)
  • Papa Kamalkhan v R (1935) ILR 59 Bom 495
  • Srinivas Mall Bairoliya v Emperor (1947) 34 AIR 135 (PC)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Mango v Queen (Criminal Appeal No. 211 of 1955) [1955] EACA 280 (1 January 1955)
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.