Wakilii

Rex v Said (Criminal Appeal No. 76 of 1945)

East African Court of Appeal · [1945] EACA 18 · 1945 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal appeal from conviction for murder by H.M. High Court of Tanganyika
Decision
Conviction for murder upheld; appellant remains convicted

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 of Appeal upheld the murder conviction despite procedural deficiencies in the trial record. The court held that while it is unsafe to convict solely on a dying declaration due to possible mistaken identity, strong circumstantial evidence showing the deceased could not have been mistaken as to his assailant's identity provides sufficient corroboration. The court also reaffirmed that each witness's evidence must be recorded in full and cannot be recorded by reference to another witness's testimony in a different court.

Outcome

Conviction for murder upheld; appellant remains convicted

Facts

The deceased claimed a bedsheet hanging at the appellant's house as stolen property. The appellant asserted he had purchased it at a store in Amboni. They agreed to go to Amboni together to verify the claim. Several witnesses saw them set off together, with the appellant carrying a panga, a bottle, and wearing a white cap. Shortly thereafter, witness Asha saw the deceased being pursued and assaulted by a man with a panga. The deceased staggered to Asha's house, fell, and when asked who attacked him, named the appellant as his assailant. The appellant later appeared without the cap, bottle, or bedsheet, was sweating heavily with red eyes, and told witnesses he was going to Amboni. The deceased died from his injuries. At trial, only six of twenty-seven preliminary inquiry witnesses were called. The appellant attempted to establish an alibi but his single witness failed to do so.

Issues

  1. Whether the conviction for murder could be sustained despite the prosecution calling only six of twenty-seven witnesses from the preliminary inquiry.
  2. Whether a witness may be recorded as stating that his evidence is identical to that of another witness in another court.
  3. Whether a conviction may be based solely on the dying declaration of the deceased.
  4. Whether circumstantial evidence was sufficient to corroborate the dying declaration and exclude the possibility of mistaken identity.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.

Rules and key headnotes

Evidence — Recording of Evidence — Duty of Court — Witness Cannot Adopt Another Witness's Testimony
A witness cannot be allowed to say, or to be recorded as saying, that in regard to a certain matter his evidence is identical with that of another person in another court. Even if two witnesses purport to give identical evidence, it is the duty of the court to record the evidence of each witness in full.
Evidence — Dying Declaration — Corroboration — Unsafe to Convict Solely on Dying Declaration
It is generally unsafe to base a conviction solely on the dying declaration of a deceased person owing to the possibility of mistake on his part in the identification of his assailant.
Evidence — Dying Declaration — Corroboration by Circumstantial Evidence — Exclusion of Mistake
Other evidence, including circumstantial evidence, may go to show that the deceased could not have been mistaken in the identification of his assailant, thereby rendering a dying declaration a safe basis for conviction when corroborated by such evidence.
Criminal Procedure — Trial — Witnesses — Discretion Not to Call All Preliminary Inquiry Witnesses
Not all witnesses called at a preliminary inquiry must be called at trial, but the omission to call certain witnesses may result in lacunae in the prosecution case. Notwithstanding such lacunae, a conviction may be sustained if there remains ample evidence to support it.

Cases cited (3)

  • Rex v Mwinyibegu s/o Mwinyimviale (1935) 2 EACA 70
  • Rex v Muyovya bin Msuma (1939) 6 EACA 128
  • Rex v Eligu (1943) 10 EACA 90

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Rex v Said (Criminal Appeal No. 76 of 1945) [1945] EACA 18 (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.