Wakilii

Mukasa v Rex (Criminal Appeal No. 254 of 1951)

East African Court of Appeal · [1951] EACA 321 · 1951 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal appeal from murder conviction by High Court of Uganda
Decision
Appellant's conviction for murder upheld; appeal dismissed

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 confession made to a police officer below the rank of Assistant Inspector and recorded in an Occurrence Book is inadmissible under section 24 of the Uganda Evidence Ordinance. Sections 5 and 33, which permit evidence of entries in official books, do not modify the requirements of section 24. The prohibition against proving confessions made to junior police officers cannot be circumvented by recording the confession in an official register. Appeal dismissed; conviction upheld on other admissible evidence.

Outcome

Appellant's conviction for murder upheld; appeal dismissed

Facts

The appellant was convicted of murdering his wife by the High Court of Uganda. A six-year-old child gave sworn testimony that the appellant inflicted fatal injuries on the deceased with a panga, cutting her head and neck. The appellant gave himself up at a police station on 11 July 1951 and made a statement to a Police Corporal confessing to cutting his wife. This statement was recorded in the Occurrence Book. The appellant consistently admitted responsibility for his wife's death but claimed he was too drunk to remember the events. Two adult witnesses testified they saw little wrong with the appellant at midday on the day of the killing, which occurred before sunset. After the first blow, the deceased ran away but was pursued and caught again by the appellant. He then fled and hid in the bush.

Issues

  1. Whether a confession made to a Police Corporal below the rank of Assistant Inspector, recorded in an Occurrence Book, is admissible under section 33 of the Uganda Evidence Ordinance despite the prohibition in section 24.
  2. Whether the trial Judge was correct in finding that the appellant was not so intoxicated as to be unable to form the intention to kill or do grievous harm.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Conviction for murder upheld.

Rules and key headnotes

Evidence — Confessions — Admissibility — Confession to Police Officer Below Rank of Inspector
A confession made to a police officer below the rank of Assistant Inspector is inadmissible under section 24 of the Uganda Evidence Ordinance, and this prohibition cannot be circumvented by recording the confession in an Occurrence Book and tendering it under section 33 as an entry in an official record.
Evidence — Official Records — Scope of Section 33 — Relationship with Section 24
Section 33 of the Uganda Evidence Ordinance, which renders entries in official books admissible as relevant facts, does not modify or override the requirements of section 24 prohibiting proof of confessions made to junior police officers. To hold otherwise would constitute a dangerous erosion of the safeguard against admitting confessions made to police officers below a certain rank.
Evidence — Child Witnesses — Competency — Sworn Testimony
Under section 116 of the Uganda Evidence Ordinance, a child of approximately six years may give sworn testimony if the trial judge is satisfied that the child can understand and give rational answers to questions put to him.
Criminal Law — Murder — Intoxication — Capacity to Form Intent
Evidence that an accused pursued and caught a fleeing victim after an initial attack, and then decamped and hid immediately after the killing, supports an inference that although drunkenness may have brought on homicidal frenzy, the accused knew what he was doing and deliberately gave vent to his passions, thus possessing the capacity to form the intention to kill or do grievous harm.

Legislation cited (4)

  • Uganda Evidence Ordinance s.24
  • Uganda Evidence Ordinance s.33
  • Uganda Evidence Ordinance s.5
  • Uganda Evidence Ordinance s.116

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Mukasa v Rex (Criminal Appeal No. 254 of 1951) [1951] EACA 321 (1 January 1951)
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.