Wakilii

Rex v Mengech (Criminal Appeal No. 158 of 1939)

East African Court of Appeal · [1940] EACA 8 · 1940 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal appeal from conviction by H.M. Supreme Court of Kenya
Decision
Conviction upheld; appeal dismissed

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 held that a certificate of an accused's statutory statement, though not in the exact words of section 219(4) of the Kenya Criminal Procedure Code, sufficiently complied with the statutory provisions where it certified the statement was made voluntarily after proper warning, read over to the accused, and declared correct. The court observed that evidence from the committing magistrate to cure defects in certification was properly received, and expressed regret that section 533 of the Indian Criminal Procedure Code, which expressly permitted such curative evidence, no longer appeared in the Kenya Code.

Outcome

Conviction upheld; appeal dismissed

Facts

The appellant was convicted of an offence by the Supreme Court of Kenya. At the preliminary inquiry, the committing magistrate recorded the accused's statutory statement and issued a certificate that did not follow the exact wording prescribed by section 219(4) of the Kenya Criminal Procedure Code. The certificate stated the statement was made voluntarily after proper warning, read over to the accused and declared correct, and noted the translation process from Kipsigis through Swahili to English. At trial, Crown Counsel, concerned the certificate might be held defective, called the committing magistrate and his clerk to give evidence that the statutory statement had been properly recorded and translated to the appellant. The trial judge received this evidence. The conviction was based on a child's evidence, which was corroborated, regarding both the commission of the offence and the appellant's implication.

Issues

  1. Whether a certificate of an accused's statutory statement at preliminary inquiry that does not follow strictly the prescribed form is valid.
  2. Whether evidence may be called at trial to cure a defect in the certificate of a statutory statement.
  3. Whether the provisions of section 533 of the Indian Criminal Procedure Code should be incorporated into the Kenya Criminal Procedure Code.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.

Rules and key headnotes

Criminal Law & Procedure — Preliminary Inquiry — Statutory Statement — Certificate of Voluntary Statement — Substantial Compliance with Statutory Form
A certificate of an accused's statutory statement at preliminary inquiry need not follow the exact words of the statutory provision but must sufficiently comply with its requirements by certifying that the statement was made voluntarily after proper warning, read over to the accused, and declared correct.
Evidence — Statutory Statements — Defective Certification — Curative Evidence — Admissibility of Magistrate's Testimony
Where a certificate of a statutory statement is inadequately certified or not certified at all, the committing magistrate may be called as a witness at trial to give evidence that the accused duly made the statement recorded, and such evidence is admissible to cure the defect provided the error has not injured the accused as to his defence on the merits.

Legislation cited (3)

  • Kenya Criminal Procedure Code s.219(4)
  • Indian Criminal Procedure Code s.533
  • Indian Evidence Act 1872 s.91

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Rex v Mengech (Criminal Appeal No. 158 of 1939) [1940] EACA 8 (1 January 1940)
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.