Wakilii

Rex v Mgundulwa and Others (Criminal Appeals Nos. 212, 213 and 214 of 1946)

East African Court of Appeal · [1946] EACA 47 · 1946 Convictions Quashed 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
All three appellants 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 held that the evidence against the first and second appellants did not establish the common intention necessary to render them responsible for the killing during a burglary. The trial judge erred in excluding the third appellant's extra-judicial statement, which denied striking the deceased. Once a plea of not guilty is entered, any subsequent admission cannot derogate from that plea. Dying declarations are generally unsafe to act upon without satisfactory corroboration. All three convictions were set aside and the appellants acquitted.

Outcome

All three appellants acquitted and discharged

Facts

Three men were charged with murder arising from a burglarious expedition during which the owner of the burgled hut was killed. The first and second accused denied the charge; the third accused said "I admit it" but a plea of not guilty was entered for all three. There was no evidence that any party member was armed or that violence was contemplated. No evidence showed that the first or second accused entered the deceased's hut or struck any blow. The third accused made an extra-judicial statement admitting participation in the burglary but denying striking the deceased or entering his hut. The deceased made a dying declaration naming one Mwezi as having struck him and stating there were at least two thieves. The trial judge found that the third accused had killed the deceased and that the first and second accused were acting in concert with him, convicting all three of murder.

Issues

  1. Whether the evidence established common intention sufficient to render the first and second appellants responsible for the killing.
  2. Whether the trial judge erred in excluding the extra-judicial statement of the third appellant.
  3. Whether an admission made by an accused after a plea of not guilty has been entered can be considered in derogation of that plea.
  4. Whether a conviction for murder can be sustained on the basis of a dying declaration without satisfactory corroboration.

Orders

  • Appeals allowed.
  • Convictions set aside.
  • All three appellants acquitted.

Rules and key headnotes

Murder — Common Intention — Requirement of Evidence
For persons participating in a burglary to be held responsible for a killing that ensues, there must be evidence establishing a common intention to commit the act causing death; mere participation in the burglarious enterprise is insufficient to establish liability for murder absent evidence that the accused contemplated violence, were armed, or participated in the fatal act.
Extra-Judicial Statements — Admissibility — Statements Incriminating Others
An extra-judicial statement made by an accused person should not be excluded merely because it contains inadmissible matter insofar as other persons are concerned; such a statement remains admissible in favour of or against the maker.
Plea — Effect of Admission After Not Guilty Plea Entered
Once a plea of not guilty is entered, any admission made by an accused in answer to the charge cannot be considered in derogation of that plea; the accused is put on trial and guilt must be proved.
Dying Declarations — Corroboration Requirement
It is generally speaking very unsafe to act upon a dying declaration unless it is satisfactorily corroborated.

Cases cited (1)

  • Rex v Mughuira and Others (10 E.A.C.A. 105)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Rex v Mgundulwa and Others (Criminal Appeals Nos. 212, 213 and 214 of 1946) [1946] EACA 47 (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.