Wakilii

Rex v Ndara and Seven Others (Criminal Appeals Nos. 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139 and 140 of 1945)

East African Court of Appeal · [1945] EACA 27 · 1945 Appeals Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal appeals from convictions for robbery with violence in the Supreme Court of Kenya
Decision
Convictions for robbery with violence upheld for all eight appellants

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

All eight appeals dismissed. The Court held that there was sufficient independent corroborative evidence implicating each appellant in the robbery. The Court clarified the law on admissibility of statements and confessions by co-accused: an extra-judicial confession implicating both the maker and a co-accused may be taken into consideration against the co-accused as accomplice evidence requiring corroboration. A statement exculpating the maker while blaming a co-accused cannot be used against the co-accused at all.

Outcome

Convictions for robbery with violence upheld for all eight appellants

Facts

Eight appellants were convicted of robbery with violence committed at Sigona Golf Club on 26 December 1944. The principal Crown witness was Kigoro Kimenye, a taxi driver who testified that he was engaged by two of the accused and drove ten passengers to the golf club, waited while they committed the robbery, and then drove them back to Nairobi. During the robbery, club premises were burgled, staff were violently assaulted, two safes were broken open, and over Sh. 1,600 in cash was stolen along with a suitcase, pistol and other articles. Each of the first seven appellants made extra-judicial statements to a magistrate admitting going in the car and receiving Sh. 100 each as their shares. The eighth appellant admitted in his extra-judicial statement going in the taxi with ten others, taking money from the club, and receiving Sh. 100 as his share. Part of the stolen property was found in possession of two appellants.

Issues

  1. Whether the convictions for robbery with violence were safe given that the principal Crown witness was an accomplice requiring corroboration.
  2. What is the scope of admissibility of extra-judicial statements and confessions made by accused persons tried jointly, particularly when such statements implicate co-accused?
  3. What corroborative evidence is required when relying on accomplice testimony?

Orders

  • Each of the eight appeals is dismissed.

Rules and key headnotes

Evidence — Accomplice Evidence — Corroboration — Sufficiency of Independent Corroborative Evidence
Corroboration of an accomplice may be found in what an accused person himself says in his extra-judicial statement or confession, and such statement constitutes independent corroborative evidence of the accomplice's testimony implicating that accused.
Evidence — Confessions — Extra-Judicial Confessions Implicating Co-Accused — Admissibility
Where an accused makes an extra-judicial confession implicating unequivocally both himself and a co-accused, that confession is admissible and may be taken into consideration as against the co-accused as well as against the maker, subject to the conditions as to admissibility contained in the Evidence Act, but as against the co-accused it constitutes accomplice evidence requiring corroboration.
Evidence — Statements by Co-Accused — Exculpatory Statements Blaming Co-Accused — Inadmissibility
If an accused makes an extra-judicial statement exculpating himself and putting the blame on a co-accused, such statement is not a confession and can be proved against the maker, but it cannot be taken into consideration at all as evidence against the co-accused.
Evidence — Preliminary Inquiry Statements — Self-Incriminating Statements Implicating Co-Accused — Admissibility
If at the preliminary inquiry an accused makes a statement implicating both himself and a co-accused so as to tar himself with the same brush, such statement is evidence against himself and may also be taken into consideration as against the co-accused, subject to the question of corroboration as emanating from an accomplice, but if the statement implicates the co-accused whilst exculpating the maker it cannot be taken into consideration at all as against the co-accused.
Evidence — Trial Statements and Testimony by Co-Accused — Admissibility Against Co-Accused
If at the trial an accused makes a statement or gives evidence, such statement or evidence is on the same footing as that of any other witness and may be taken into consideration against a co-accused, but where it implicates the co-accused it must be treated as accomplice evidence requiring corroboration.
Evidence — Accomplice Evidence — Credibility Assessment Before Seeking Corroboration
The first duty of the Court in considering accomplice evidence is to decide whether the accomplice is a credible witness; if the Court feels it cannot believe the accomplice it must reject the evidence, and unless independent evidence is of itself sufficient to justify a conviction the prosecution must fail; only if the Court regards the accomplice as credible must it then proceed to look for independent corroborative evidence.
Evidence — Accomplice Evidence — Nature of Corroborative Evidence Required
Independent evidence corroborating an accomplice need not be direct evidence that the accused committed the crime; it is sufficient if it is merely circumstantial evidence of the accused's connection with the crime, provided it affects the accused by connecting or tending to connect him with the crime.

Cases cited (1)

  • Rex v Baskerville (1916) 2 KB 658

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Rex v Ndara and Seven Others (Criminal Appeals Nos. 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139 and 140 of 1945) [1945] EACA 27 (1 January 1945)
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.