Wakilii

Murage and Others v Reginam (Criminal Appeal No. 168 of 1956)

East African Court of Appeal · [1956] EACA 562 · 1950 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal appeal from conviction for murder by the Supreme Court of Kenya
Decision
All seven appellants' convictions for murder upheld; death sentences confirmed for those over 18 years of age.

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 of Appeal held that where an accused person refuses to plead, is found by a psychiatrist to be simulating mental disease, and creates such disturbance that the trial cannot proceed in his presence, the trial Judge may correctly enter a plea of not guilty on his behalf, order his removal from Court, and conduct the trial in his absence, bringing him in only for identification, to make his defence, to hear judgment, and for sentencing. The Court also held that both the second and fourth appellants were over 18 years of age at the time of the murder, making their death sentences lawful.

Outcome

All seven appellants' convictions for murder upheld; death sentences confirmed for those over 18 years of age.

Facts

Seven convicts imprisoned on Megeta Island serving long terms escaped together by seizing a large canoe and murdered one of the fishermen who owned it. All were charged with and convicted of murder. The third accused, when arraigned, refused to plead and created such an uproar in Court that doubts arose as to his sanity. A psychiatrist examined him and concluded he was mentally normal and simulating disease of the mind to avoid trial. The accused continued to make such disturbance that the trial could not proceed in his presence. The trial Judge entered a plea of not guilty on his behalf, ordered his removal, and conducted the trial in his absence, bringing him in only for identification, to make his defence, to hear judgment, and for sentencing. The second and fourth appellants claimed to be under 18 years of age at the time of the murder.

Issues

  1. Whether the trial procedure adopted by the trial Judge was correct where the third accused refused to plead, created such disturbance in Court that the trial could not proceed in his presence, and was found by a psychiatrist to be simulating mental disease.
  2. Whether the second and fourth appellants were under 18 years of age at the time of the murder, rendering their death sentences unlawful.

Orders

  • Appeals dismissed.

Rules and key headnotes

Criminal Procedure — Trial in Absence of Accused — Disorderly Conduct Preventing Trial
Where an accused person charged with felony refuses to plead, is found by a psychiatrist to be simulating mental disease, and creates such disturbance in Court that the trial cannot proceed in his presence, the trial Judge may enter a plea of not guilty on his behalf under the Criminal Procedure Code, order his removal from Court, and conduct the trial in his absence, provided the accused is brought in for identification, given the opportunity to make his defence, informed of the judgment, and present for sentencing.
Criminal Procedure — Presence of Accused — Exception for Disorderly Conduct
Although a prisoner indicted on a charge of felony must ordinarily remain in Court throughout the trial, he may be removed for disorderly conduct where his continued presence makes it impossible for the trial to be held.
Expert Evidence — Psychiatric Evidence — Simulation of Mental Disease
Where an accused person's conduct raises doubts as to his sanity, a psychiatrist's evidence that the accused is mentally normal and merely simulating disease of the mind is admissible and may be relied upon by the Court to determine fitness to stand trial.

Legislation cited (1)

  • Criminal Procedure Code s.276

Cases cited (3)

  • Berry, Northampton Assizes, November 17th, 1897
  • George Smellie's case (14 Cr. App. R. p. 128)
  • Mary Browne, (70 J.P. 472, 1906)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Murage and Others v Reginam (Criminal Appeal No. 168 of 1956) [1950] EACA 562 (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.