Wakilii

Rex v Busigo (Criminal Appeal No. 13 of 1945)

East African Court of Appeal · [1945] EACA 15 · 1945 Matter Remitted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal appeal from conviction of murder in the High Court of Uganda
Decision
Matter remitted to High Court of Uganda for taking of additional evidence; appeal hearing adjourned pending receipt of that evidence

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 for Eastern Africa has power under Article 3 of the East African Court of Appeal Order in Council, 1921, read with section 317 of the Uganda Criminal Procedure Code, to direct the taking of additional evidence. Where evidence already on the record is unclear and requires elucidation, it is a proper case for the exercise of that power. This is distinguishable from calling new evidence to fill a gap in the prosecution case.

Outcome

Matter remitted to High Court of Uganda for taking of additional evidence; appeal hearing adjourned pending receipt of that evidence

Facts

The appellant was convicted of murder in the High Court of Uganda. During the appeal hearing, it became apparent that evidence concerning the chain of custody of exhibits sent to the Government chemist was unclear. Dr. Keidon testified to sealing stomach, liver, intestines, kidney, soup, bones, vomit and breast milk in jars and bottles and handing them to police. Assistant Superintendent Police Mathias and P.C. Otoo each testified to receiving and transmitting two sealed jars and two sealed bottles. However, the Government chemist's report stated he received two jars and three bottles. The discrepancy could not be resolved from the evidence on record. The Government chemist had not been called as a witness at trial; his report was admitted under section 150(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Issues

  1. Whether the Court of Appeal for Eastern Africa has power to call for additional evidence to elucidate evidence already on the record.
  2. Whether it is proper to exercise that power where evidence tendered at trial is unclear and requires clarification.

Orders

  • High Court of Uganda directed to take additional evidence from Dr. Keidon, P.C. Yosia Otoo, Assistant Superintendent Police Mathias and the Government chemist on the lines indicated.
  • Additional evidence to be taken in accordance with the provisions of section 317 of the Uganda Criminal Procedure Code.
  • Additional evidence to be returned to the Court of Appeal as soon as possible.
  • Hearing and decision of the appeal adjourned to the next sessions.

Rules and key headnotes

Criminal Law & Procedure — Appeals — Additional Evidence — Power of Appellate Court
The Court of Appeal for Eastern Africa has power under Article 3 of the East African Court of Appeal Order in Council, 1921, to call for additional evidence, exercising all powers vested in the court from which the appeal is brought, including the power conferred by section 317 of the Uganda Criminal Procedure Code.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Appeals — Additional Evidence — Proper Exercise of Power
Where evidence already on the record is unclear and requires elucidation, it is a proper case for the exercise of the appellate court's power to call for additional evidence, provided the jurisdiction is exercised with great care.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Appeals — Additional Evidence — Distinction from New Evidence
Directing the elucidation of evidence already on the record is distinguishable from directing new evidence to be taken to fill a gap in the prosecution case. The former is a proper exercise of appellate power; the latter is not.

Legislation cited (4)

  • East African Court of Appeal Order in Council, 1921 Article 3
  • Uganda Criminal Procedure Code s.317
  • Uganda Criminal Procedure Code s.268
  • Uganda Criminal Procedure Code s.150(1)

Cases cited (2)

  • Rex v Sirasi Bachumira (Criminal Appeal No. [not stated] of 1936)
  • The King v. Robinson (1917), 2 K.B.D. 108

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Rex v Busigo (Criminal Appeal No. 13 of 1945) [1945] EACA 15 (1 January 1945)
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.