Wakilii

Rex v Nakome and Another (Criminal Appeals Nos. 165 and 166 of 1947)

East African Court of Appeal · [1947] EACA 47 · 1947 Appeal Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal appeals from decision of H.M. High Court of Uganda
Decision
Second appellant's appeal allowed; first appellant's appeal dismissed

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 where a witness gives evidence of a statement recorded through two interpreters, both interpreters must be called to testify to make the evidence admissible, as otherwise it constitutes hearsay. The Court further held that under section 119 of the Evidence Ordinance of Uganda, a wife married by a monogamous Christian marriage is not a competent witness against her husband. Both points were of academic interest only as the appeals succeeded or failed on other grounds.

Outcome

Second appellant's appeal allowed; first appellant's appeal dismissed

Facts

The first and second appellants were convicted in the High Court of Uganda. During the trial, a Superintendent of Police gave evidence of a voluntary statement taken from the second appellant through double interpretation, but neither interpreter was called to testify. Additionally, the wife of the first appellant, married by a Christian monogamous marriage, gave evidence against him. The appellants appealed their convictions to the Court of Appeal for Eastern Africa.

Issues

  1. Whether evidence of a statement recorded through double interpretation is admissible when neither interpreter is called as a witness.
  2. Whether a wife by a Christian monogamous marriage is a competent witness against her husband under section 119 of the Evidence Ordinance of Uganda.

Orders

  • Second appellant's appeal allowed on other grounds.
  • First appellant's conviction upheld despite evidentiary irregularity.

Rules and key headnotes

Evidence — Hearsay — Double Interpretation — Admissibility
Where a witness gives evidence of a statement recorded through two interpreters, both interpreters must be called to give evidence before the statement can be admitted, as otherwise the witness can only testify to what the second interpreter told him, which constitutes mere hearsay.
Evidence — Competency of Witnesses — Spousal Privilege — Monogamous Marriage
Under section 119 of the Evidence Ordinance of Uganda, a wife of an accused person is a competent witness against the accused only if married by a marriage other than a monogamous marriage; a wife married by a Christian monogamous marriage is therefore not a competent witness against her husband.

Legislation cited (1)

  • Evidence Ordinance of Uganda s.119

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Rex v Nakome and Another (Criminal Appeals Nos. 165 and 166 of 1947) [1947] EACA 47 (1 January 1947)
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.