Wakilii

Rex v Kurgat (Confirmation Case No. 910 of 1939)

East African Court of Appeal · [1939] EACA 157 · 1938 Conviction Upheld AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal confirmation case on appeal from magistrate's conviction
Decision
Conviction and sentence confirmed

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 a confession made by an accused person while under arrest is inadmissible. However, under the proviso to section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, information given by an accused in custody that leads to the discovery of facts may be proved. Where the accused stated the location of stolen cattle and those cattle were subsequently discovered at those locations, that portion of the statement was admissible. Coupled with unexplained possession, this evidence was sufficient to uphold the conviction.

Outcome

Conviction and sentence confirmed

Facts

The accused was charged with unlawful possession of stock in a proclaimed area contrary to section 10 of the Stock and Produce Theft Ordinance 1933. While under arrest by tribal retainers, the accused made a confession to an assistant chief admitting guilt and stating that he had placed cattle with two named individuals. Following these statements, one animal was discovered with one person and two animals with another. The herd testified that the cattle were stolen between 15 September and 12 October 1939. The accused offered no explanation for his possession of the animals.

Issues

  1. Whether the magistrate improperly relied on the accused's statement in answer to the charge after a not guilty plea was entered.
  2. Whether a confession made by the accused while under arrest by tribal retainers was admissible in evidence.
  3. Whether information given by the accused leading to discovery of stolen cattle was admissible under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.

Orders

  • Conviction confirmed.
  • Sentence confirmed.

Rules and key headnotes

Evidence — Confessions — Statements Made While Under Arrest — Inadmissibility
A confession made by an accused person while under arrest is inadmissible in evidence.
Evidence — Confessions — Discovery of Facts — Indian Evidence Act Section 27
Under the proviso to section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, when a fact is discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of an offence while in custody, so much of such information as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered may be proved, whether or not it amounts to a confession.
Criminal Procedure — Plea of Not Guilty — Statement in Answer to Charge
Where a plea of not guilty has been entered, what an accused person says in answer to the charge cannot be used against him in derogation of the plea.
Criminal Law — Unlawful Possession — Unexplained Possession as Evidence of Guilt
Possession of recently stolen property coupled with the failure of the accused to give any explanation of such possession is sufficient evidence to support a conviction for unlawful possession.

Legislation cited (2)

  • Stock and Produce Theft (Levy of Fines) Ordinance 1933 s.10
  • Indian Evidence Act s.27

Cases cited (3)

  • Rex v Kyesongera slo Weraga (1935) 2 EACA 63
  • Rex v Pirmin bin Kunjanga (1935) 2 EACA 64
  • Rex v Alukani slo Alimunya (1935) 2 EACA 87

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Rex v Kurgat (Confirmation Case No. 910 of 1939) [1938] EACA 157 (1 January 1938)
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.