Wakilii

Rex v Kadongo (Cr. App. No. 51-1936.)

East African Court of Appeal · [1936] EACA 51 · 1936 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal appeal from conviction for murder
Decision
Conviction for murder upheld

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

Prosecuting counsel is not bound to call all witnesses who have made depositions. As a minister of public justice, counsel need only lay before the court such facts as the interests of justice demand. The duty is satisfied if witnesses not called are in attendance so the defence can call them if desired. The trial judge properly exercised discretion in weighing conflicting evidence and accepting the testimony of Asumani over Mariamu.

Outcome

Conviction for murder upheld

Facts

The appellant was convicted of murdering Katikiro during or shortly after a beer drink at the house of Kelefani. The appellant became objectionable, demanding return of his cotton on grounds of insufficient beer. A fight broke out and several people including the deceased left the house. Crown evidence showed the appellant left carrying a heavy wooden pestle, and shortly after Asumani heard a noise, looked round and saw Katikiro lying dead on the ground with the appellant standing close by holding the pestle. A witness Mariamu gave evidence before the Magistrate stating her husband Jafali admitted striking Katikiro and that she saw Jafali strike him. The trial judge rejected Mariamu's evidence as unimpressive and accepted Asumani's evidence, which was corroborated by other witnesses as to the time and order of people leaving Kelefani's house.

Issues

  1. Whether prosecuting counsel is bound to call all witnesses who have made depositions before the Magistrate.
  2. Whether the trial judge properly rejected the evidence of the witness Mariamu and accepted the evidence of Asumani.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.

Rules and key headnotes

Criminal Procedure — Prosecution Duty — Calling Witnesses — Discretion Not to Call All Deponents
Prosecuting counsel is not bound to call all witnesses who have made depositions before the Magistrate but is only required to lay before the court such facts as the interests of justice demand, provided that witnesses not called are in attendance so the defence can call them if desired.
Evidence — Witness Credibility — Trial Judge's Assessment — Appellate Review
The trial judge is in a better position than an appellate court to assess the credibility and demeanour of witnesses, and an appellate court should not disturb findings of fact where adequate reasons have been given for accepting one witness's evidence over another's.
Criminal Procedure — Crown Witnesses — Submission for Cross-Examination — Leading Questions
Where the Crown submits a witness for cross-examination before the close of the Crown case, the defence is placed in a more favourable position than if they had called the witness themselves, as they are enabled to put leading questions which they could not otherwise have done.

Cases cited (4)

  • R v Edwards and others (3 Cox CC 82)
  • R v Woodhead (2 Car & Kir 520)
  • R v Cassidy (1 F & F 79)
  • R v. Belaney

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Rex v Kadongo (Cr. App. No. 51-1936.) [1936] EACA 51 (1 January 1936)
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.