Wakilii

Rex v Kihigwe (Criminal Appeal No. 183 of 1948)

East African Court of Appeal · [1948] EACA 43 · 1948 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal appeal from conviction for murder by the High Court of Uganda
Decision
Conviction and death sentence 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

Held that the appellant failed to discharge the burden of proving insanity at the time of the killing. Although she may have laboured under an insane delusion that her children had been killed, she knew what she was doing, knew she was killing a child, and realised her act was wrong. Under the McNaughton Rules, an insane delusion excuses an offence only if the accused would be excused if the delusional facts were real. Here, the appellant killed in revenge, not in supposed self-defence of her children. Appeal dismissed.

Outcome

Conviction and death sentence upheld

Facts

The appellant, Kabande w/o Kihigwe, was convicted of murdering a small boy named Tarasisio by striking him on the head with a heavy hoe handle, fracturing his skull. The killing occurred on 28 March 1948. Upon arrest, the appellant told the deceased's father that she killed his child because his children had killed her children. She repeated similar statements to others. In fact, all six of the appellant's children were alive and well. Days before the killing, she had suddenly accused the deceased's family of witchcraft without any apparent basis. The appellant was first examined by a medical officer on 12 May 1948, over six weeks after the crime. The medical officer found no evidence of unsound mind during three brief examinations. At trial, the appellant appeared to understand the proceedings. The defence argued she was insane and labouring under an insane delusion at the time of the killing.

Issues

  1. Whether the appellant was insane at the time she committed the act of killing.
  2. Whether the trial Judge should have returned a special verdict of 'Guilty but Insane'.
  3. Whether the appellant's insane delusion as to the killing of her children excused her from criminal responsibility under the McNaughton Rules.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Conviction for murder upheld.
  • Death sentence upheld.

Rules and key headnotes

Criminal Law & Procedure — Insanity Defence — Burden of Proof — Standard of Proof
The burden of proving insanity as a defence to a criminal charge rests on the accused, and the standard of proof is no higher than that required of a party proving an issue in a civil case.
Evidence — Expert Evidence — Medical Evidence of Insanity — Timing and Adequacy of Examination
Where a medical officer first examines an accused charged with a capital offence more than six weeks after the alleged crime and only on a few brief occasions, he is not in a position to give reliable evidence as to the accused's mental condition at the time of the offence or during the entire period of remand.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Insanity Defence — Insane Delusion — Application of McNaughton Rules Question IV
Under the McNaughton Rules, a person labouring under an insane delusion as to existing facts must be considered in the same situation as to responsibility as if the facts with respect to which the delusion exists were real. An accused who kills in revenge for a delusional wrong, rather than in supposed self-defence or defence of others based on the delusion, is not excused from criminal responsibility.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Insanity Defence — Knowledge of Nature and Quality of Act — Knowledge of Wrongfulness
An accused is criminally responsible if she knew what she was doing, knew she was killing a particular person, and realised that what she was doing was wrong, notwithstanding that she may have acted under crazy beliefs or insane delusions as to motive.

Legislation cited (1)

  • Penal Code s.195

Cases cited (1)

  • McNaughten's Case

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Rex v Kihigwe (Criminal Appeal No. 183 of 1948) [1948] EACA 43 (1 January 1948)
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.