Wakilii

Rex v Saite (Cr.A. 87-1934.)

East African Court of Appeal · [1937] EACA 171 · 1937 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal appeal from conviction for murder by District Magistrate sitting with assessors
Decision
Conviction and sentence upheld

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 Judge has no power under section 202(5) of the Nyasaland Criminal Procedure Code to direct further evidence after the Attorney-General has transmitted the record. The Judge's function is limited to directing which verdict shall be entered. The power to direct further evidence rests solely with the Attorney-General under section 202(3). Evidence called by the Judge after the close of the defence is inadmissible. However, where sufficient admissible evidence remains on the record to support the conviction, the appeal will be dismissed.

Outcome

Conviction and sentence upheld

Facts

The appellant Saite was convicted of murdering Akunyaika alias Akundambiche on 16 April 1934 by the District Magistrate at Zomba sitting with assessors. The evidence showed that during a quarrel, the accused threw an axe at one Beaton, who ducked. The axe struck Akundambiche (the wife of Singano, the accused's brother) on the forehead, inflicting a deep wound. She was taken to hospital where she died on 20 September 1931. The accused initially made statements accusing others of injuring the woman. After the trial reached the summing-up stage, the record was forwarded to the Attorney-General and then to the Judge, who directed that further evidence be called. The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence of death.

Issues

  1. Whether under section 202(5) of the Nyasaland Criminal Procedure Code the Judge has power to direct that further evidence be called after the Attorney-General has transmitted the record to the High Court.
  2. Whether there was sufficient admissible evidence to support the conviction for murder after excluding evidence improperly called by the Judge.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Conviction for murder upheld.

Rules and key headnotes

Criminal Procedure — Murder Trials — Section 202 Nyasaland Criminal Procedure Code — Powers of Judge on Receiving Record from Attorney-General
Under section 202(5) of the Nyasaland Criminal Procedure Code, the Judge's power is limited to directing which verdict shall be entered; the Judge has no power to direct that further evidence be called after the Attorney-General has transmitted the record to the High Court.
Criminal Procedure — Murder Trials — Power to Direct Further Evidence — Attorney-General's Exclusive Power
The power to direct further evidence in murder trials under section 202 of the Nyasaland Criminal Procedure Code rests exclusively with the Attorney-General under sub-section (3) and cannot be exercised by the Judge under sub-section (5).
Evidence — Calling Evidence After Close of Defence — Rule in Rex v Harris
Where a murder trial is to be conducted in the manner prescribed for trials in the High Court, the English rule of practice in Rex v Harris applies: neither the prosecution nor the trial Judge shall call evidence after the close of the case for the defence except in reply or rebuttal to matter raised by the defence ex improviso which no human ingenuity could foresee.
Evidence — Inadmissible Evidence — Sufficiency of Remaining Evidence
Where evidence has been improperly admitted, the appellate court must consider whether, after expunging the inadmissible evidence from the record, there remains sufficient evidence to support the conviction.

Legislation cited (3)

  • Nyasaland Criminal Procedure Code s.202
  • Nyasaland Criminal Procedure Code s.140
  • Nyasaland Criminal Procedure Code s.247

Cases cited (1)

  • Rex v Harris (20 Cr App R 86)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Rex v Saite (Cr.A. 87-1934.) [1937] EACA 171 (1 January 1937)
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.