Wakilii

Rex v Kibiro (Cr. App. 135-1931.)

East African Court of Appeal · [1932] EACA 28 · 1932 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal appeal from conviction and sentence of death passed by the Chief Justice of Kenya
Decision
Conviction and sentence of death affirmed

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 dismissed the appeal against a murder conviction. Held that intoxication under Penal Code section 14 does not automatically establish absence of mens rea. The section excuses an accused only if the court is satisfied that intoxication rendered the person incapable of forming intention. Where an intoxicated person is capable of forming and does form an intention, intoxication provides no defence. The appellant, though intoxicated, was capable of forming and did form the intention to beat the deceased over a twelve-hour period, establishing malice aforethought under section 189.

Outcome

Conviction and sentence of death affirmed

Facts

The appellant was convicted of murder and sentenced to death by the Chief Justice of Kenya on 6 November 1931. The appellant had beaten the deceased over a period of approximately twelve hours. The appellant was intoxicated at the time of the offence. The appellant argued on appeal that he was so drunk that he was incapable of forming the intention to kill and that no malice aforethought had been established. The trial judge found that malice aforethought had been proved and that the appellant, despite intoxication, was capable of forming and did form the intention to carry out the beating.

Issues

  1. Whether malice aforethought was established for the murder conviction.
  2. Whether the appellant was so intoxicated that he was incapable of forming the intention to kill.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Conviction and sentence affirmed.

Rules and key headnotes

Intoxication as Defence — Penal Code Section 14 — Capacity to Form Intention
Intoxication under section 14 of the Penal Code does not automatically establish absence of mens rea. The section excuses an accused only if the court is satisfied that by reason of intoxication the person was in fact incapable of forming an intention. If an intoxicated person is capable of forming and does form an intention, the defence of intoxication fails.
Murder — Malice Aforethought — Penal Code Section 189 — Proof of Intention
Malice aforethought under section 189 of the Penal Code is established where the accused forms and carries out an intention to cause harm to the victim, even if the accused is intoxicated at the time. The onus of proving absence of intention rests on the accused under section 14.
Burden of Proof — Intoxication — Absence of Intention
The onus of proving absence of intention by reason of intoxication rests on the accused. It is not part of the Crown's duty to prove malice aforethought where the accused relies on intoxication as a defence under section 14 of the Penal Code.

Legislation cited (4)

  • Penal Code s.14
  • Penal Code s.189
  • Penal Code s.189(a)
  • Penal Code s.189(b)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Rex v Kibiro (Cr. App. 135-1931.) [1932] EACA 28 (1 January 1932)
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.