Wakilii

Rex v Rono (Criminal Appeal No. 431 of 1948)

East African Court of Appeal · [1948] EACA 81 · 1948 Appeal Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal appeal from conviction for perjury in the Resident Magistrate's Court at Eldoret
Decision
Appellant acquitted and ordered released unless serving another sentence

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 joint statement recorded by a police officer from two persons cannot provide a proper basis for a perjury prosecution when one person denies its accuracy, as the officer cannot record the actual words of each individual. A judge should not call a witness in a criminal trial after the defence closes except where a matter arises ex improviso which no human ingenuity could foresee. Calling a witness on a point that could have been anticipated by the prosecution constitutes an incurable irregularity that occasions prejudice to the accused.

Outcome

Appellant acquitted and ordered released unless serving another sentence

Facts

The appellant and one Kiplamai arap Sang were arrested for stock theft and made statements to a police officer incriminating one arap Misoi. The police officer recorded their admissions as a single joint statement since their accounts were identical. At arap Misoi's trial, the appellant was called as a Crown witness and treated as hostile when he denied that the statement put to him was the one he had made. He was subsequently charged with perjury for knowingly giving false testimony that the statement recorded by the police officer was not his statement. At his perjury trial, a prosecution witness testified that he acted as interpreter and that Constable Kipsaina was present when the statement was taken. The appellant denied making the statement as read but agreed Kipsaina was present. After the defence closed, the trial court called Constable Kipsaina as a witness. The appellant was convicted and sentenced to six months hard labour.

Issues

  1. Whether a joint statement recorded by a police officer from two persons can provide a proper basis for a prosecution for perjury when one person denies making it.
  2. Whether the trial court committed an incurable irregularity by calling a witness after the close of the defence.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • Conviction quashed.
  • Appellant to be set at liberty forthwith unless serving a sentence for another offence.

Rules and key headnotes

Perjury — Joint Statements — Admissibility as Basis for Prosecution
A statement recorded jointly by a police officer from two persons cannot provide a proper basis for a prosecution for perjury when one person denies its accuracy, because a police officer taking a statement is expected to record it in the actual words used by the maker, which cannot be achieved when recording a joint statement from multiple persons.
Criminal Procedure — Calling Witnesses After Close of Defence — Ex Improviso Exception
A judge should not call a witness in a criminal trial after the case for the defence is closed except in a case where a matter arises ex improviso on the part of the prisoner which no human ingenuity can foresee.
Criminal Procedure — Incurable Irregularity — Calling Witness on Foreseeable Point
Where the prosecution or the court calls a witness after the close of the defence on a point that was not ex improviso and could not have taken the prosecution or court by surprise, this constitutes an incurable irregularity under section 381 of the Criminal Procedure Code because it is impossible to say that it did not occasion prejudice to the accused.

Legislation cited (3)

  • Penal Code s.104
  • Criminal Procedure Code s.150
  • Criminal Procedure Code s.381

Cases cited (1)

  • Rex v Harris (1927) 2 KB 587

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Rex v Rono (Criminal Appeal No. 431 of 1948) [1948] EACA 81 (1 January 1948)
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.