Wakilii

Rex v Mulindwa (Criminal Appeal No. 143 of 1949)

East African Court of Appeal · [1949] EACA 41 · 1949 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 Uganda
Decision
Conviction for murder upheld; appellant remains convicted

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 a confession to a police officer below the rank of assistant inspector is inadmissible under section 24 of the Uganda Evidence Ordinance. The absence of a proper caution does not automatically render a statement inadmissible if it was made voluntarily. A statement is involuntary only if obtained by fear of prejudice or hope of advantage from a person in authority. The confession to Mr. Walker was admissible as it was made two days after any improper inducement by the sub-inspector and was therefore voluntary. An accused's denial of making a statement is not a retraction and requires no corroboration. Intent to commit a felony under sections 225 or 226 of the Penal Code establishes malice aforethought under section 196(c), making the offender guilty of murder if death results.

Outcome

Conviction for murder upheld; appellant remains convicted

Facts

The deceased, Nasrina Namakula, died from arsenical poisoning after eating food at her home. The appellant had quarreled with the deceased over alleged theft of his property and had decided to leave her house. On the day of the poisoning, the appellant returned to pack his belongings while the deceased cooked her food between 4 and 5 p.m. After eating at 6 p.m., the deceased complained of something wrong with the food, then collapsed with vomiting and diarrhea. She was taken to hospital and died the following morning. A packet of arsenic was found hidden in the appellant's room. The appellant was arrested and made statements to a sub-inspector and later to Mr. Walker, a European police officer, in which he confessed to putting poison in the water used for cooking, claiming he intended only to make the deceased ill, not to kill her.

Issues

  1. Whether the confession made to a sub-inspector below the rank of assistant inspector was admissible under section 24 of the Uganda Evidence Ordinance.
  2. Whether the confession to Mr. Walker was voluntary and admissible in evidence.
  3. Whether the absence of a proper caution rendered the statement to Mr. Walker inadmissible.
  4. Whether any improper inducement by the sub-inspector continued to operate on the appellant's mind when he made his statement to Mr. Walker.
  5. Whether the appellant's denial of making a statement constituted a retraction requiring corroboration.
  6. Whether the evidence established malice aforethought as defined in section 196 of the Penal Code.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.

Rules and key headnotes

Evidence — Confessions — Admissibility — Confession to Police Officer Below Rank of Assistant Inspector
A confession made to a police officer below the rank of assistant inspector is inadmissible in evidence by reason of section 24 of the Uganda Evidence Ordinance.
Evidence — Confessions — Voluntariness — Inquiry into Circumstances
Where there is an allegation or reason to believe that a confession was made in circumstances showing it was not voluntary, the Court must inquire fully into the circumstances and ascertain the exact words used. For this purpose, the Court should hear both prosecution witnesses and any defence witnesses, including the accused, whom the defence wishes to call. The bare allegation by a police officer that an accused person spoke voluntarily is insufficient; it is for the Court, not the witness, to decide whether a statement was voluntary.
Evidence — Confessions — Caution — Effect of Absence or Inadequacy
The Judges' Rules are administrative directions for police guidance and do not have the force of law. The absence of a caution does not of itself make a statement inadmissible. However, it may be a ground for the judge to exercise discretion to exclude the evidence if the statement was not voluntary in the sense that it was obtained by fear of prejudice or hope of advantage from a person in authority, or was an unguarded answer made in circumstances rendering it unreliable or unfair.
Evidence — Confessions — Voluntariness — Definition
A statement is not voluntary when it has been obtained by fear of prejudice or hope of advantage exercised or held out by a person in authority. Where a confession is made to one officer after an improper inducement by another officer, the later confession is admissible if sufficient time has elapsed such that the improper inducement can no longer be held to be operating on the mind of the accused.
Evidence — Confessions — Denial versus Retraction — Corroboration
An accused person's denial that he ever made a statement is not a retraction of a confession which the maker admits to having made. Such a denial does not require corroboration.
Criminal Law — Murder — Malice Aforethought — Intent to Commit Felony
Malice aforethought is established by evidence proving an intent to commit a felony under section 196(c) of the Penal Code. Where a person unlawfully administers poison or a noxious substance with intent to injure or annoy another, intending to commit the felonies described in sections 225 and 226 of the Penal Code, and death results, the person is guilty of murder. It is immaterial whether the offender intended or knew that death or grievous harm was likely to result; the necessary malice aforethought is established by the intent to commit the underlying felony.

Legislation cited (4)

  • Uganda Evidence Ordinance s.24
  • Uganda Penal Code s.196
  • Uganda Penal Code s.225
  • Uganda Penal Code s.226

Cases cited (4)

  • R v Njarura (11 EACA 59)
  • R v Voisin (13 Cr App R 89)
  • R v Labasha (3 EACA 48)
  • Tulley v Corrie (10 Cox CC 584)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Rex v Mulindwa (Criminal Appeal No. 143 of 1949) [1949] EACA 41 (1 January 1949)
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.