Wakilii

Rex v Mulebi (Criminal Appeal No. 73 of 1948)

East African Court of Appeal · [1948] EACA 20 · 1948 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal appeal from conviction for murder by the High Court of Tanganyika
Decision
Appellant's conviction for murder and sentence of death upheld

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 evidence of a statement made by a husband to his wife by native law and custom incriminating himself is admissible. Where such a statement is made in public in the presence of other persons, it is not a communication purely between spouses and is not privileged under section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act. Failure by witnesses to raise an alarm or volunteer information until after a period of days does not necessarily detract from their credibility where the trial judge gives cogent reasons for the delay after directing his mind to the need for caution.

Outcome

Appellant's conviction for murder and sentence of death upheld

Facts

The appellant was charged with murdering his senior wife by strangulation. There was no eye-witness to the killing. The appellant and deceased had been on bad terms for about a year and had frequently discussed divorce. On the night of the crime they quarrelled and were heard to run away from their abode. On his return alone, the appellant was questioned by his second wife Kwaya in the presence of two other women as to where the deceased was. He stated that he had killed her and warned them to keep quiet or he would kill them also. Kwaya and another woman who gave evidence of the confession first made statements to the police incriminating the appellant nineteen days after the deceased's death. The trial judge found that the threat to kill any other who did not remain silent had unquestionable cogency and that the women's failure to volunteer information was not inadequate given their submissiveness to circumstances and lack of initiative, the village headman's failure to conduct proper investigation, and the fact that such matters were men's affairs where women were not encouraged to participate. The appellant was convicted and sentenced to death.

Issues

  1. Whether evidence of an extra-judicial confession made by an accused to his wife by native law and custom is privileged under section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act.
  2. Whether delay by witnesses in raising an alarm or volunteering information about an extra-judicial confession necessarily detracts from their credibility.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.

Rules and key headnotes

Evidence — Spousal Privilege — Native Law and Custom Marriage — Extra-Judicial Confession
Evidence of a wife by native law and custom of a statement made to her by her husband incriminating himself is admissible and not privileged under section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Evidence — Spousal Privilege — Public Statement — Section 122 Indian Evidence Act
When a statement by a spouse is made in public in the presence of other persons, it is not in the nature of a communication purely between spouses and is not privileged under section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Evidence — Extra-Judicial Confession — Credibility — Delay in Reporting
Failure on the part of witnesses to an extra-judicial confession to raise an alarm or volunteer information until after a period of days does not necessarily detract from their credibility. A trial judge may justifiably conclude that there are adequate reasons for the delay after clearly directing his mind to the need for caution and after giving cogent reasons.

Legislation cited (1)

  • Indian Evidence Act s.122

Cases cited (1)

  • R v Robin (1929-30) 12 KLR 134

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Rex v Mulebi (Criminal Appeal No. 73 of 1948) [1948] EACA 20 (1 January 1948)
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.