Wakilii

Rex v Banha and Others (Cr. Conf. Case No. 57-35.)

East African Court of Appeal · [1935] EACA 137 · 1935 Confirmation Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal confirmation proceeding reviewing convictions from lower court
Decision
First accused conviction confirmed; second and third accused 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 held that an inculpatory statement made in answer to a charge cannot be used against an accused person if a plea of not guilty is entered. The Court further held that when an accused person wishes to call a witness, the witness should be called if it is reasonably possible to procure their evidence. The conviction of the first accused was confirmed, but the convictions of the second and third accused were quashed because the magistrate improperly considered the second accused's plea statement as evidence and failed to allow him to call his alibi witness.

Outcome

First accused conviction confirmed; second and third accused acquitted and released

Facts

Three accused persons were convicted in a lower court. The first accused was convicted on evidence that supported the conviction. The second accused was convicted based partly on inculpatory statements he made when called upon to plead, in which he stated he paid a debt with maize the morning after a theft and that he obtained the maize from the first accused's hut. The second accused sought to establish an alibi through a witness located in Rumuruti, over sixty miles away, but the magistrate refused to allow the witness to be called, stating the alibi could not be substantiated because the witness was too far away. The third accused's conviction was based on evidence the Court found insufficient.

Issues

  1. Whether an inculpatory statement made by an accused person when called upon to plead can be used as evidence against them when a plea of not guilty is entered.
  2. Whether an accused person must be given an opportunity to call a witness to establish an alibi defence.

Orders

  • Conviction and sentence of the first accused confirmed.
  • Conviction and sentence of the second accused quashed.
  • Conviction and sentence of the third accused quashed.
  • Second and third accused acquitted and directed to be released forthwith.

Rules and key headnotes

Evidence — Plea of Accused — Inculpatory Statements — Use as Evidence
An inculpatory statement made by an accused person in answer to a charge cannot be used as evidence against them if a plea of not guilty is entered.
Criminal Procedure — Defence Witnesses — Right to Call Witnesses — Alibi Evidence
When an accused person wishes to call a witness to establish a defence such as an alibi, the witness should be called if it is reasonably possible to procure their evidence, and the proper course is to adjourn the trial for a reasonable time to secure the witness's attendance.
Criminal Procedure — Fair Trial Rights — Facilities for Defence — Grave Cases
In cases of a grave nature, every facility should be given to an accused person to produce their witnesses at trial.

Legislation cited (1)

  • Criminal Procedure Code s.197

Cases cited (3)

  • Rex v Primin bin Kunjanga (1935 2 EACA 64)
  • Rex v Asmani s/o Likonja (Criminal Appeal No. 47 of 1930)
  • Rex v Murray (Criminal Appeal No. 133 of 1932)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Rex v Banha and Others (Cr. Conf. Case No. 57-35.) [1935] EACA 137 (1 January 1935)
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.