Wakilii

Rex v Mubaba (Criminal Case No. 17 of 1939)

East African Court of Appeal · [1938] EACA 167 · 1938 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal appeal from conviction for murder following trial before Chief Justice
Decision
Accused convicted of murder and sentenced to death by hanging

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 held that the defence of insanity failed. To succeed, the accused must prove he suffered from disease of the mind at the time of the act and that by reason of such disease he did not know the nature or quality of his act or that it was wrong. The onus of proof on the accused is no greater than that in civil proceedings. Running amok after a killing does not establish legal insanity. The accused knew he was firing at a human being and knew his action was wrong. Conviction for murder upheld.

Outcome

Accused convicted of murder and sentenced to death by hanging

Facts

The accused was charged with murdering his step-father Mubaba on 14 June 1938. The accused bore a grudge against Mubaba for not providing him with a wife. On the day in question, the accused shot Mubaba with an arrow, killing him. At the time of the killing, the accused called out words meaning 'Look out for yourselves'. Immediately after killing Mubaba, the accused ran amok and shot at others, killing two more persons. He then left the district. When medically examined on 17 January 1939, no signs of mental abnormality were observed. The defence raised was insanity. There was no evidence of mental history in the accused or his family. The defence relied on the accused's conduct at the time of the killings and medical evidence that if a man thought over a long period he was grievously wronged it could result in insanity.

Issues

  1. Whether the accused was legally insane at the time he killed his step-father Mubaba.
  2. Whether the defence of insanity was established under sections 12 and 13 of the Penal Code.
  3. Whether running amok after the killing constitutes legal insanity.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Conviction for murder upheld.

Rules and key headnotes

Criminal Law & Procedure — Insanity Defence — Legal Test — Penal Code sections 12 and 13
The law on the defence of insanity under the Penal Code is in effect the same as English law on the subject and reproduces section 84 of the Indian Penal Code.
Evidence — Burden of Proof — Insanity Defence — Standard of Proof
The onus of proof of insanity lies on the accused, but such onus is no greater than that which rests upon a plaintiff or defendant in civil proceedings. It is sufficient if the accused produces such a preponderance of evidence as to show that the conclusion sought is substantially the most probable of the possible views of the facts.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Insanity Defence — Elements to be Proved
For a defence of insanity to succeed, it must be shown that the accused was suffering from some disease of the mind at the time of the commission of the act and that by reason of such disease he did not know the nature or quality of his act or that what he was doing was wrong.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Insanity Defence — Running Amok — Legal Insanity
Running amok after killing a person does not establish legal insanity. A person who runs amok in anger, throwing off all restraint and shooting indiscriminately, is not legally insane if he knew what he was doing and knew his actions were wrong.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Murder — Knowledge of Nature and Quality of Act
An accused cannot be said to be legally insane where the evidence shows he knew he was firing at a human being, knew the identity of that person, and knew that what he was doing was wrong.

Legislation cited (3)

  • Penal Code s.12
  • Penal Code s.13
  • Indian Penal Code s.84

Cases cited (9)

  • Rex v Noor Mohamed Kanji (4 E.A.C.A. 34)
  • Clark v The King (Canadian Reports Vol. 6 No. 4 p. 608)
  • Sodeman v Rex [1936] 2 A.E.L.R. 1138
  • Rex v Chepkok arap Chepkitsho (Criminal Case No. 119 of 1920)
  • Rex v Mogo s/o Chesubol (Criminal Case No. 75 of 1929)
  • Rex v. Karanja Masai, tried by Hamilton C.J. in Nairobi in 1915
  • Rex v Abdulla bin Kalensiga (Criminal Case No. 63 of 1919)
  • Rex v Kiprono arap Roga (Criminal Case No. 47 of 1931)
  • MacNaughton's case

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Rex v Mubaba (Criminal Case No. 17 of 1939) [1938] EACA 167 (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.