Wakilii

Rex v Njeroge (Con. C. 275-1932.)

East African Court of Appeal · [1932] EACA 15 · 1932 Conviction Quashed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal confirmation of conviction from Magistrate's Court
Decision
Accused discharged

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

A statement made by an accused person to a police officer while in custody that amounts to an admission of incriminating circumstances constituting a completed offence is a confession and inadmissible under section 25 of the Evidence Act. When inadmissible evidence is excluded and no admissible evidence remains, the Magistrate must dismiss the case under section 196A of the Criminal Procedure Code without calling upon the accused to enter upon his defence. The conviction was quashed.

Outcome

Accused discharged

Facts

The accused was convicted by a Magistrate of holding himself out as a witch doctor able to cause injury to another in property, contrary to section 2 of the Witchcraft Ordinance. The Crown's evidence consisted of testimony from E.P.C. Griffith, a police officer, regarding a statement the accused made to him while in custody, and testimony from Mutoro who overheard the same statement. The accused had told the police officer that he gave medicine to clear Mutoro off from the farm. The Magistrate admitted this evidence and called upon the accused to enter his defence. The accused then made a statement in open court admitting he gave medicine to clear Mutoro from the farm. The Magistrate convicted on the basis of this judicial confession.

Issues

  1. Whether a statement made by an accused person to a police officer while in custody constitutes an inadmissible confession under section 25 of the Evidence Act.
  2. Whether a Magistrate should dismiss a case when, after exclusion of inadmissible evidence, no admissible evidence remains to establish a prima facie case requiring the accused to enter upon his defence.

Orders

  • Conviction quashed.

Rules and key headnotes

Evidence — Confessions — Statements to Police Officers — Admissibility
A statement made to a police officer by an accused person while in the custody of the police, if it amounts to an admission of incriminating circumstances constituting a completed offence, is a confession and cannot be used in evidence under section 25 of the Evidence Act.
Evidence — Confessions — Test for Determining Whether Statement is Confession
A confession is a statement which it is proposed to prove against a person accused of an offence to establish that offence. The statement must be looked at as a whole to determine whether it amounts to a confession.
Criminal Procedure — Discharge of Accused — No Case to Answer
Under section 196A of the Criminal Procedure Code, when after the exclusion of inadmissible evidence the admissible evidence is insufficient to prove the charge made against the accused, the Magistrate should dismiss the case without calling upon the accused to enter upon his defence.
Evidence — Hearsay — Inadmissibility of Overheard Confession
Where an accused's statement to a police officer is inadmissible as a confession, evidence of what a third party overheard the accused say to the police officer is also inadmissible.

Legislation cited (4)

  • Witchcraft Ordinance No. 23 of 1925 s.2
  • Criminal Procedure Code s.196A
  • Criminal Procedure Code s.197
  • Evidence Act s.25

Cases cited (2)

  • Rex v Mohamed bin Oman (Vol. VI EALR 61)
  • Rex v. Jovecharort. 19 B., p 363

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Rex v Njeroge (Con. C. 275-1932.) [1932] EACA 15 (1 January 1932)
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.