Wakilii

Uganda v Isoke (Criminal Session Case 190 of 1992)

High Court · [1993] UGHC 84 · 1993 Statement Admitted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Trial within a trial to determine admissibility of cautioned statement following defence objection
Decision
Cautioned statement ruled admissible; main trial to proceed

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

Held that where the recording officer had died, the cautioned statement could be admitted under s.30(1) of the Evidence Act as a statement made in the discharge of professional duty. The accused's inconsistent testimony regarding his ability to hear what was said in the office, combined with his observation of details about the officers' attire and demeanor, undermined his claim of incapacity. The court found that any prior assault or threat had dissipated by the time the statement was recorded, and that proper procedure was followed. The cautioned statement was admitted as voluntary.

Outcome

Cautioned statement ruled admissible; main trial to proceed

Facts

The accused Sulaiman Isoke was charged with the murder of Absolom Bulemu between 18 and 25 June 1991 at Kyawarwa village in Kabarole District. He was arrested on 5 September 1991 at his home and taken to Kyenjojo Police Station, then transferred to Fort Portal Police Station the following day. A cautioned statement was recorded by the late IP Trophimus Balinda on 17 September 1991. The accused objected to the statement's admissibility, claiming he did not make it and only thumb-printed it because he was scared. The accused alleged he was assaulted during arrest and detention, and was in a state akin to madness when taken to the office where the statement was recorded. A trial within a trial was held to determine admissibility, but the recording officer had died by the time of trial.

Issues

  1. Whether the cautioned statement allegedly made by the accused was actually made by him.
  2. Whether the cautioned statement was made voluntarily, free from violence, force, threat, inducement or promise.
  3. Whether the cautioned statement could be admitted in evidence under s.30(1) of the Evidence Act where the recording officer had died.

Orders

  • Cautioned statement recorded on 17/9/91 by late Balinda admitted in evidence as voluntary and properly recorded.

Rules and key headnotes

Evidence — Admissibility of Statements — Statements by Deceased Persons — Evidence Act s.30(1)
A cautioned statement recorded by a deceased police officer may be admitted in evidence under s.30(1) of the Evidence Act as a statement made by a person in the ordinary course of business in the discharge of professional duty, provided the statement itself and the recording officer's own statement explaining how it was recorded are identified and received as relevant facts.
Evidence — Confessions — Burden of Proof — Voluntariness
Once the voluntary nature of a confession is challenged by the defence, the burden of proving the admissibility of the repudiated or retracted confession lies on the prosecution, and the court must make a thorough investigation into whether the statement was made in conformity with established procedure and whether it was made voluntarily.
Evidence — Confessions — Voluntariness — Effect of Prior Violence
A confession is irrelevant if it appears to the court that its making was caused by violence, force, threat, inducement or promise calculated to cause an untrue confession; however, if such violence, force, threat, inducement or promise has been removed by the time of the statement, the confession becomes relevant and admissible.
Evidence — Credibility — Inconsistent Testimony — Accused's Claim of Incapacity
Where an accused claims he was in a state of madness and could not hear what was being read to him, but simultaneously testifies that he heard instructions to thumb-print, observed details about officers' attire and facial expressions, the inconsistencies undermine the credibility of his testimony and support a finding that the statement was made voluntarily.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (1)

  • Rashid & Others v R (1969) EA 138

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Uganda v Isoke (Criminal Session Case 190 of 1992) [1993] UGHC 84 (21 December 1993)
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.