Wakilii

Rex v Masabo and Another (Criminal Appeals Nos. 222 and 223 of 1946)

East African Court of Appeal · [1946] EACA 48 · 1946 Appeals Allowed — Acquittals Entered AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal appeals from convictions for murder by the High Court of Tanganyika
Decision
Both accused acquitted and discharged

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 allowed both appeals and acquitted the appellants. The evidence did not establish beyond reasonable doubt that Chiza formed a common design with Masabo to murder her husband. Her alleged statement about finding medicine to kill him was made a month before the murder and appeared to be petulant words uttered after being assaulted. The principal witness Bugera's evidence was unreliable and uncorroborated. She failed to report the alleged threat to kill her husband, gave contradictory accounts of when she reported Masabo as the murderer, and only named him after being struck by a court messenger. It was unsafe to convict Masabo on such unreliable testimony.

Outcome

Both accused acquitted and discharged

Facts

Masabo and Chiza were convicted of murdering Chiza's husband Buhwikiri. Chiza was Buhwikiri's senior wife who left him for Masabo about a month before the murder. The principal evidence came from Bugera, the deceased's junior wife, who testified that two days before the murder she heard Masabo and Chiza say they would kill Buhwikiri so they could marry. She claimed she witnessed Masabo kill her husband during the night after being awakened by someone spitting on her eyes. She said Masabo warned her to give no alarm or he would kill her too. A month before the murder, after Buhwikiri had assaulted Chiza badly, she told a neighbour she would find medicine to kill him. Bugera did not report the alleged threat to anyone before the murder. After the murder, she gave contradictory accounts of when and to whom she reported Masabo as the killer. The headman testified she remained silent when questioned and only named Masabo after being struck by a court messenger.

Issues

  1. Whether the evidence established beyond reasonable doubt that Chiza had formed a common design with Masabo to kill her husband.
  2. Whether it was safe to convict Masabo of murder on the evidence of the witness Bugera.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • Conviction and sentence of Chiza d/o Kulize quashed.
  • Conviction and sentence of Masabo s/o Mwendabantu set aside.
  • Both appellants acquitted.

Rules and key headnotes

Murder — Common Design — Standard of Proof
To establish guilt for murder based on common design, the evidence must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused formed a common design with another to kill the deceased. Mere coincidences, even when cumulative, that give rise only to suspicion are insufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Witness Credibility — Failure to Report Crime — Weight of Evidence
Where a witness admits being cognizant of a projected crime and takes no steps to prevent its commission or communicate knowledge of it, the witness's evidence should be regarded as no better than that of an accomplice and should only be acted upon after the closest scrutiny.
Uncorroborated Evidence — Contradictory Testimony — Safety of Conviction
It is unsafe to convict on the uncorroborated testimony of a witness whose evidence contains material contradictions, particularly where the witness gives conflicting accounts of when and to whom they reported the crime, and only names the accused after being physically coerced.
Murder — Threats to Kill — Evidential Weight
Words uttered on the spur of the moment by a person who has recently been badly assaulted, expressing an intention to kill the assailant, should not be given weight as evidence of a formed intention to murder where the killing occurs a month later and by an entirely different method than that proposed.

Cases cited (2)

  • Rex v Abdul Rasul s/o Jivraj (3 T.T.L.R. 71)
  • Rex v Edith Jessie Thompson (17 Cr. A.R. 71)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Rex v Masabo and Another (Criminal Appeals Nos. 222 and 223 of 1946) [1946] EACA 48 (1 January 1946)
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.