Wakilii

Rex v Mwamere (Cr. App. No. 70-1936)

East African Court of Appeal · [1936] EACA 139 · 1936 Appeal Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal appeal from conviction for using witch medicine with intent to injure
Decision
Appellant acquitted; conviction and sentence quashed; no new trial ordered

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 charges must be framed with sufficient particulars of time, place, and the role of each accused. A plea of not guilty is a general denial and statements construed as such a plea cannot be used against the accused. An accomplice cannot corroborate another accomplice. The conviction was quashed because the only evidence against the appellant came from accomplices whose testimony lacked independent corroboration, and the trial magistrate improperly considered the accused's statement in answer to the charge.

Outcome

Appellant acquitted; conviction and sentence quashed; no new trial ordered

Facts

The appellant was one of three persons accused of using witch medicine with intent to injure their Chief in North Kavirondo District. The appellant and one co-accused pleaded not guilty; the third accused, Khatendi, pleaded guilty, was convicted, and later called as a Crown witness. The Crown's case relied on the evidence of Khatendi and Aluka, both accomplices. Aluka testified that as the appellant's servant he was obliged to follow orders and that the appellant was involved in a plot to kill the Chief by witchcraft. Khatendi gave similar evidence. A defence witness, Orodini, gave evidence that purported to involve the appellant, but stated the events occurred over a year ago, contradicting other evidence that the plot took place in May, shortly before trial. The charge lacked particulars of the date and the specific role of each accused.

Issues

  1. Whether a charge must contain sufficient particulars of time, place, and the part played by each accused to give adequate notice.
  2. Whether a statement made by an accused in answer to a charge amounting to a plea of not guilty can be construed as incriminating or as an admission of guilt.
  3. Whether the evidence of one accomplice can corroborate the evidence of another accomplice.
  4. Whether there was sufficient corroborated evidence to sustain the conviction of the appellant.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • Conviction and sentence of the appellant (second accused) quashed.
  • Conviction and sentence of the first accused quashed in exercise of revisional power.
  • Conviction and sentence of the third accused (who pleaded guilty) confirmed from the date of conviction.
  • No order for new trial.

Rules and key headnotes

Criminal Procedure — Framing of Charges — Particulars Required
A charge must be framed giving such particulars of the time and place of the alleged offence as are sufficient to give the accused notice of the matter with which he is charged. Where there are two or more accused jointly charged, the Court must frame charges against each with sufficient particulars of the part played by each accused.
Criminal Procedure — Plea of Not Guilty — Effect of Accused's Statement
A plea of not guilty must be taken as a general denial and the words which are construed as the plea cannot also be construed in derogation of the plea. A statement of an accused in answer to the charge amounting to a plea of not guilty should not be considered by a Court as in any sense incriminating the accused or implying any admission of guilt.
Evidence — Accomplice Evidence — Corroboration Requirement
An accomplice whose evidence requires corroboration cannot corroborate another accomplice. It is settled law that the evidence of an accomplice requires corroboration before a conviction can be sustained on it.

Legislation cited (2)

  • Criminal Procedure Code Second Schedule
  • Ordinance 23 of 1925 s.4

Cases cited (1)

  • Rex v Pirmin Kunjanga (2 EACA 64)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Rex v Mwamere (Cr. App. No. 70-1936) [1936] EACA 139 (1 January 1936)
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.