Wakilii

Uganda v Sulaiman Isoke (Sessions Case No. 190 of 1992)

High Court · [1993] UGHC 111 · 1993 Objection Dismissed — Statement Admitted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Trial within a trial on admissibility of cautioned statement in murder prosecution
Decision
Trial to proceed with cautioned statement admitted in evidence

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 the cautioned statement recorded by the late Detective Inspector Balinda was admissible in evidence. The court found that proper procedure was followed under the Evidence (Statements to Police Officers) Rules. Although the accused alleged assault and coercion, the court rejected his testimony as inconsistent and found the statement was made voluntarily without threat or inducement at the time of recording.

Outcome

Trial to proceed with cautioned statement admitted in evidence

Facts

The accused Sulaiman Isoke was charged with the murder of Absolom Bulemu between 18 and 25 June 1991 at Kyawarwa village, Kabarole District. He denied the offence. A cautioned statement was recorded by late Detective Inspector Balinda on 17 September 1991. The accused objected to its admissibility, claiming he was arrested on 5 September 1991, severely beaten during and after arrest, and forced to thumb mark a statement he did not make out of fear. The accused testified he was assaulted to the point of requiring an operation for stomach swelling and was in a state of mental confusion when taken to the officer's room two days after arrest. He said armed policemen were present and he feared further beating.

Issues

  1. Whether the cautioned statement allegedly made by the accused was admissible in evidence.
  2. Whether the cautioned statement was made voluntarily by the accused.
  3. Whether the statement was made by the accused or fabricated by the recording officer.

Orders

  • Cautioned statement made by accused on 17 September 1991 before late Balinda admitted in evidence.
  • Objection to admissibility dismissed.

Rules and key headnotes

Evidence — Admissibility of Statements — Statements by Deceased Officers — Evidence Act s.30(b)
A cautioned statement and the recording officer's account of how it was taken may be admitted under Evidence Act s.30(b) as statements of relevant facts made by a person now dead in the ordinary course of business and discharge of professional duty, even where the recording officer has died and cannot testify.
Evidence — Confessions — Burden of Proof on Prosecution
Once the voluntary nature of a confession is challenged by the defence, the court must conduct a thorough investigation and the burden of proving admissibility lies on the prosecution.
Criminal Procedure — Cautioned Statements — Proper Procedure
A cautioned statement must be recorded in conformity with the procedure set down in Evidence (Statements to Police Officers) Rules, including reading the charge to the accused, administering the caution, recording in the language of the accused, reading back the statement, and obtaining acknowledgment before counter-signature.
Evidence — Confessions — Voluntariness — Violence, Force, Threat or Inducement
Under Evidence Act s.25, a confession is irrelevant if caused by violence, force, threat, inducement or promise calculated to cause an untrue confession, but becomes relevant if such influence has been removed by the time the statement is made.
Evidence — Credibility — Inconsistencies in Accused's Testimony
Where an accused's testimony contains material inconsistencies—such as claiming inability to hear words read to him while simultaneously recalling specific instructions and observations in the same encounter—the court may reject the accused's evidence as not credible.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (1)

  • Pashid & Others vs. 1969 EA 138

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Uganda v Sulaiman Isoke (Sessions Case No. 190 of 1992) [1993] UGHC 111 (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.