Wakilii

Rex v Amasi and Another (Cr. Apps. Nos. 80 and 81 of 1938)

East African Court of Appeal · [1938] EACA 125 · 1938 Appeals Allowed — Convictions Quashed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal appeals from convictions for murder by the High Court of Tanganyika
Decision
Both appellants acquitted and released

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 both appeals and quashed the murder convictions. A statement by a co-accused who does not inculpate himself cannot be considered against other accused. An accomplice's statement requires corroboration, and possession of the deceased's cloth was insufficient. An extra-judicial confession must be proved by the person to whom it was made, who must also prove it was voluntary; an interpreter's identification of a document in a language he cannot read does not suffice. A person cannot be convicted as an accessory after the fact if the felony was incomplete when assistance was given.

Outcome

Both appellants acquitted and released

Facts

Jambi and Mkindiki were convicted of murdering Kilojita, who was found drowned in a well after his throat had been cut. Two co-accused, Mutau and Intenko, were acquitted. The prosecution case against Jambi rested on a statement by Mkindiki and Jambi's possession of a cloth belonging to the deceased, which Jambi said he found the day after the death and hid because he was afraid. Against Mkindiki, the prosecution relied on an alleged extra-judicial confession made to a magistrate who later conducted the preliminary inquiry, and a statement Mkindiki made at the preliminary inquiry in which he said Mutau hit the deceased with a stick, that he and the appellants carried the deceased outside, and that Jambi cut the deceased's throat. The trial judge also considered a statement by co-accused Mutau against both appellants. Medical evidence established that death was caused by drowning.

Issues

  1. Whether a statement by a co-accused who does not inculpate himself can be considered against other accused persons.
  2. Whether the possession and hiding of the deceased's cloth by Jambi constituted sufficient corroboration of Mkindiki's statement.
  3. Whether the alleged extra-judicial confession of Mkindiki was properly proved at trial.
  4. Whether there was evidence that Mkindiki's extra-judicial confession was made voluntarily.
  5. Whether Mkindiki could be convicted as an accessory after the fact when he assisted in carrying the deceased before the felony was complete.

Orders

  • Both appeals allowed.
  • Convictions and sentences quashed.
  • Both appellants acquitted.
  • Release of both appellants directed.

Rules and key headnotes

Evidence — Accomplice Evidence — Statement by Co-Accused — Admissibility Against Other Accused
A statement by a co-accused that does not inculpate the maker cannot be taken into consideration against other accused persons charged jointly with him.
Evidence — Accomplice Evidence — Corroboration — Sufficiency
Where a conviction rests upon the statement of an accomplice, it requires corroboration in a material particular before the conviction can stand. The possession and hiding of property belonging to the deceased, in circumstances where the accused claims to have found it and hidden it out of fear, does not constitute sufficient corroboration.
Evidence — Confessions — Extra-Judicial Confession — Proof of Making and Voluntariness
An extra-judicial confession must be proved by the person to whom it was made, and that person must also prove that the statement was made freely and voluntarily. It does not suffice for another person to produce a document purporting to be the statement bearing a certificate that it was made freely and voluntarily. Evidence from an interpreter who can neither speak nor read English cannot prove a statement written in English.
Criminal Law — Accessory After the Fact — Completion of Felony
For a person to be convicted as an accessory after the fact, it is necessary that the felony be complete at the time the assistance is given. Where a person assists in carrying a victim who is still alive, though appearing dead, the felony is not complete and the person cannot be convicted as an accessory after the fact.

Cases cited (2)

  • Rex v Chuma arap Kimenja (15 K.L.R. 102)
  • Rex v Mutono s/o Luigo and Another (3 E.A.C.A. 114)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Rex v Amasi and Another (Cr. Apps. Nos. 80 and 81 of 1938) [1938] EACA 125 (1 January 1938)
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.