Wakilii

Osigai v Reginam (Criminal Appeal No. 243 of 1956)

East African Court of Appeal · [1956] EACA 586 · 1950 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 Uganda
Decision
Appellant acquitted and discharged

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 allowed the appeal and set aside the murder conviction. The original statement in Ateso should have been produced at trial alongside translations. A statement made through an interpreter to a senior officer is made to that officer, not to the interpreter. The sub-inspector's deposition at the preliminary inquiry revealed that the accused had been questioned in custody until he confessed, after which he was charged and cautioned. This confession was obtained under pressure before caution and was improperly admitted. Without it, the conviction was unsafe.

Outcome

Appellant acquitted and discharged

Facts

The appellant was arrested on 7 June 1956 and brought to Kumi Police Station. On 9 June 1956, Sub-Inspector Majalya charged him with murdering his uncle. The appellant made a statement orally in Ateso through P.C. Okoropot, who acted as interpreter. Okoropot recorded the statement in Ateso, then translated it orally into Swahili for the sub-inspector, who recorded it in Swahili and later translated it into English. Only the Swahili and English versions were tendered at trial. The sub-inspector's deposition at the preliminary inquiry revealed that he had questioned the appellant in custody, that the appellant was initially reluctant but finally broke and made a confession, after which he was charged and cautioned. At trial, the appellant denied making the confession and stated the interpreter had not translated properly and had read the statement back to him in Swahili, which he did not understand.

Issues

  1. Whether a statement made to a police officer above the rank of corporal through an interpreter who is only a police constable is admissible under section 24 of the Evidence Ordinance.
  2. Whether the original statement in the accused's own language must be produced at trial in addition to translations.
  3. Whether a confession obtained through questioning in custody before caution was properly admitted into evidence.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • Conviction and sentence set aside.
  • Appellant to be set at liberty forthwith.

Rules and key headnotes

Evidence — Confessions — Statements to Police — Production of Original Statement
Where a statement is recorded by a police officer literate in the language of the accused, that original recording must be produced at trial as the utterance of the accused, together with a duly proved English translation. Neither the English translation nor any other translation should be treated as a substitute for the original version.
Evidence — Confessions — Statements Through Interpreters
A statement made through an interpreter to a police officer above the rank of corporal is made to that senior officer and through, not to, the interpreter. The fact that the interpreter is below the rank of corporal does not render the statement inadmissible where the receiving officer is of sufficient rank.
Evidence — Confessions — Voluntariness — Questioning Before Caution
A confession obtained through questioning of an accused in custody before caution is administered, where the accused is reluctant but finally breaks under pressure, is inadmissible. Recording the confession after administering a caution as a matter of form does not cure the irregularity or render the confession voluntary.
Criminal Procedure — Prosecution Duty — Disclosure of Material Facts
Prosecuting counsel bears the onus of proving affirmatively the voluntary nature of a confession and has a duty to put before the court all material facts within his knowledge concerning the circumstances in which the confession was obtained, including facts that may be adverse to the prosecution case.

Legislation cited (3)

  • Uganda Evidence Ordinance s.24
  • Uganda Evidence (Amendment) Ordinance 1955 s.2
  • Uganda Evidence (Statements to Police Officers) (No. 2) Rules 1955 rule 4

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Osigai v Reginam (Criminal Appeal No. 243 of 1956) [1950] EACA 586 (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.