Wakilii

Rex v Singh (Criminal Appeal No. 481 of 1946)

East African Court of Appeal · [1947] EACA 76 · 1947 Appeal Allowed — Conviction Quashed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal appeal from conviction for perjury by Resident Magistrate, Nairobi
Decision
Appellant acquitted and discharged; fine to be refunded if paid

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 evidence in civil proceedings was not recorded in accordance with Order XVI, rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules (requiring interpretation back to the witness for correction), the record is inadmissible in a subsequent perjury prosecution to prove what the witness said. An interpreter's testimony that the record accurately reflects what was said cannot substitute for the deficient record and is equally inadmissible as proof of the sworn testimony.

Outcome

Appellant acquitted and discharged; fine to be refunded if paid

Facts

The appellant was charged with perjury arising from testimony given in a civil suit before the Supreme Court. The appellant, whose mother tongue was Gurumukhi, testified in Hindustani which was translated by a Gujerati interpreter into English and recorded by the Judge. The evidence was not interpreted back to the appellant for correction as required by Order XVI, rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, nor was there any waiver of this requirement by the parties or their advocates. At the perjury trial, the prosecution relied on the civil suit record and the interpreter's testimony that he had truly interpreted the appellant's evidence and that the marked passages in the record were correct. The Resident Magistrate convicted the appellant and sentenced him to nine months' imprisonment with hard labour and a fine of Sh. 1,000 with four months' imprisonment in default.

Issues

  1. Whether a record of evidence in civil proceedings is admissible in a perjury prosecution when the evidence was not recorded in accordance with Order XVI, rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  2. Whether an interpreter's testimony can substitute for an inadmissible record of evidence to prove what was said on oath.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • Conviction and sentence set aside.
  • Appellant acquitted.
  • Fine, if paid, to be refunded.

Rules and key headnotes

Evidence — Admissibility — Record of Civil Proceedings — Non-compliance with Civil Procedure Rules
Where evidence in civil proceedings is taken down in a language different from that in which it is given and the witness does not understand the language in which it is recorded, the record is inadmissible in subsequent criminal proceedings if the evidence was not interpreted back to the witness as required by Order XVI, rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Perjury — Proof of False Testimony — Best Evidence Rule
In Kenya, the best evidence of testimony constituting alleged perjury is the Judge's record of such testimony duly taken in compliance with law so as to form part of the record; a deficient record not complying with mandatory procedural requirements is inadmissible.
Evidence — Secondary Evidence — Interpreter's Testimony Cannot Cure Defective Record
An interpreter's testimony that a defective record accurately reflects what a witness said on oath is not admissible as secondary evidence where the interpreter does not state from recollection the words uttered but merely confirms the contents of an inadmissible record.
Civil Procedure — Recording of Evidence — Waiver of Mandatory Requirements
Silence on the part of counsel cannot reasonably be interpreted as a waiver of the application of a mandatory provision requiring that evidence recorded in a different language be interpreted back to the witness; waiver under Order XVI, rule 6 must be by express consent of both parties or their advocates.

Legislation cited (3)

  • Penal Code s.104
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.XVI r.6
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.18 r.5

Cases cited (2)

  • R v Atkinson (10 EACA 119)
  • Nurmohamed Remtulla Bapoo v Rex (3 LR Tanganyika 67)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Rex v Singh (Criminal Appeal No. 481 of 1946) [1947] EACA 76 (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.