Rex v Lwabijjawo (Criminal Appeal No. 249 of 1947)
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 where in a trial for murder a defence is put forward and rejected, it remains the duty of the court to consider the possibility of manslaughter if there is some evidence to support it, even if the accused does not raise that defence. However, on the evidence in this case, there was no material to support an hypothesis of provocation reducing the offence to manslaughter. The appeal was dismissed.
Outcome
Conviction for murder upheld
Facts
The appellant was convicted of murder in the High Court of Uganda for spearing the deceased Nasaneiri in the back whilst a group of people, including the deceased, were gathered watching the appellant's house burn at night. At trial the appellant claimed he thought the deceased was an animal, which defence the court rejected as fantastic given the illumination from the burning house and the presence of other spectators. Evidence showed the appellant had previously stated he suspected no one of burning his house, attributing it to children and fowls. When seized after the spearing he remarked about trouble between them due to fires, but evidence revealed the deceased was a chief who had previously caused the appellant to be fined for burning jungle. The appellant never alleged the deceased was responsible for burning his house.
Issues
- Whether the trial judge erred in not directing himself and the assessors on the possibility of manslaughter on the ground of provocation, even though such defence was not put forward by the accused.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed.
Rules and key headnotes
Cases cited (5)
- Rex v Mwaniki (IX EACA 40)
- Mancini v Director of Public Prosecutions [1941] 3 AER 272
- Rex v Kwaku Mensah (115 LJ Reports 20)
- R v Hopper [1915] 2 KB 431
- Rex v Clinton (CAR 215)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.