Wakilii

Sebukuraya v Regina (Criminal Appeal No. 222 of 1952)

East African Court of Appeal · [1952] EACA 266 · 1952 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal appeal from High Court of Uganda murder conviction
Decision
Murder conviction 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

Appeal from murder conviction dismissed. The court held that the appellant was not so intoxicated as to be unable to form intent to kill, as he announced his intention to spear the deceased before leaving a beer party and followed him some distance. The court found no provocation, as the appellant's own statement admitted stabbing the deceased without mentioning prior assault. The court observed that statements should never be read in open court until properly proved by both the interpreter and the recording officer.

Outcome

Murder conviction upheld; appellant remains convicted

Facts

The appellant was convicted of murder by the High Court of Uganda. Before leaving a beer party, the appellant announced his intention to spear the deceased. Two witnesses heard this threat. The appellant then followed the deceased some distance and stabbed him. In his statement before the committing Magistrate, the appellant admitted stabbing the deceased when he caught up with him on the road but said nothing about being assaulted first by the deceased. The appellant gave an explanation for his injuries that agreed generally with prosecution evidence. At trial, a police statement was read out before being properly proved; the interpreter had not properly interpreted the caution to the appellant. The trial judge excluded the statement but it had already been read in open court.

Issues

  1. Whether the appellant was so intoxicated as to be unable to form an intention to kill.
  2. Whether injuries found on the appellant were caused by beating after he stabbed the deceased.
  3. Whether the trial judge properly excluded the appellant's statement to police when the interpreter had not properly interpreted the caution.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.

Rules and key headnotes

Criminal Law & Procedure — Intoxication — Defence of Intoxication — Ability to Form Intent
Where an accused announces his intention to kill before leaving a beer party and then follows the victim some distance before stabbing him, the accused's conduct clearly indicates he knew what he was about and intoxication does not negate the ability to form intent to kill.
Evidence — Confessions and Statements — Admissibility — Proof Requirements
A statement should never be read out in open court until it is properly proved by the evidence of the interpreter as well as by the magistrate or police officer who recorded it.
Evidence — Confessions and Statements — Caution — Proper Interpretation
Where an interpreter has not properly interpreted the usual caution to an accused when a statement is taken, the statement must be excluded even if it has already been read out in open court.

Cases cited (1)

  • Kashandago s/o Kadoshi v Regina (Criminal Appeal No. 68 of 1952)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Sebukuraya v Regina (Criminal Appeal No. 222 of 1952) [1952] EACA 266 (1 January 1952)
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.