Wakilii

Rex v Selemani and Another (Criminal Appeals Nos. 134 and 135 of 1947)

East African Court of Appeal · [1947] EACA 34 · 1947 Appeal Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal appeals from convictions for murder by the High Court of Tanganyika
Decision
First appellant's murder conviction and death sentence upheld. Second appellant acquitted and 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

Where two persons commit burglary together unarmed and one subsequently seizes the householder's weapon and kills him, the other cannot automatically be convicted of murder. The principle that when people commit burglary together and one kills both are liable for murder is too broad. The second appellant's conviction was quashed; the first appellant's conviction upheld.

Outcome

First appellant's murder conviction and death sentence upheld. Second appellant acquitted and discharged.

Facts

On the night of 2-3 March 1947, both appellants broke into the house of Bakari s/o Nyange in Tanganyika. When Bakari woke, the first appellant seized Bakari's own bow and arrows and fired two arrows at him, inflicting wounds to the chest and thigh. Bakari died from shock and haemorrhage on 4 March at 5:30 p.m. The evidence included testimony from Bakari's wife and son who were eyewitnesses, and a dying declaration made by Bakari before a magistrate on 3 March and repeated in the presence of both appellants on 4 March. Both appellants were unarmed when they set out to commit the burglary. The first appellant was Bakari's nephew; the second appellant was the first appellant's nephew. Both were convicted of murder and sentenced to death by the High Court.

Issues

  1. Whether both appellants were liable for murder when one killed the householder during a burglary committed by both.
  2. Whether the second appellant could be convicted of murder when both appellants were unarmed at the outset and the first appellant used the deceased's own weapon.

Orders

  • Appeal of first appellant dismissed.
  • Appeal of second appellant allowed.
  • Conviction of second appellant for murder quashed.
  • Second appellant ordered to be set at liberty.

Rules and key headnotes

Murder — Joint Enterprise — Burglary — Liability of Co-Accused
When two persons commit burglary together unarmed and one subsequently uses the victim's own weapon to kill, the other cannot automatically be convicted of murder merely because they participated in the burglary together.
Murder — Joint Enterprise — Foreseeability
The principle that when people commit the felonious act of burglary together and one kills both are liable to be convicted of murder is too broad a statement of the law.
Dying Declaration — Admissibility
A dying declaration made before a magistrate and repeated in the presence of the accused is admissible evidence in a murder trial.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Rex v Selemani and Another (Criminal Appeals Nos. 134 and 135 of 1947) [1947] EACA 34 (1 January 1947)
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.