t(_

I
i
N'l r\ I( E RII llE
h- #
,EW+,
UNI\/EI1S TTYj
=
FACTJLTY OF LAW
I
-t

The Law of evidence I

BY

lt'
'tit.u.'#E
Diana..Nagitta
&
Mr. Wiltshirc l(alibalr

2008/2009
 i
.;

I,A\V OF IiVIDI'I.{CD I
r I
I

CON,IPILIiD NO'|ESI f

lllll liti IIACI(CROUND OIr TI I Ii L;AW OIt EVTDONCD i

I

J Discussion oI tlre law ot'evldcttce came on t et e [ac I

I
tlse ol rational frcocesses. This is reflcctcd in the modern form. of court procedure and this
I
I

departs front the earlier forms oI procedure such as triat by bat.tlc, ordeal, and cornpurgation
I

in so far qs thcsc proccdurcs sought to ostablish facts by way oI divinc guidancc. Pattlc- i

.figh[ry i.e. tvinner takes aU, ce walk in fire I

while Com u lved ha who wou

I

These proceclures w.ere replacgd.by newer procedures through which courts sought to
cstablish facts by applying lawl:dnd rules and this gradually evolved intb a sct o[principles-

ii used in establishing facts. Thc iutcs of evidence rvere thus brought into operation and like
tr :
u-i
other conrmon lary systcnrs: thcy wcrc elaborated onli by judges in dcciding cases. Thcse '

nrles are applicable irr civil and criminal law.

h usrn thc best nce

t' Sontc of thcse rules include the,
I
t
Jn-lhe c i rcu msta nqg!,

Aqcording to c larv oIcvidencc dcals co cx

of facts. Ilc didn't couceive evidencc as a concept enrployed in courrs of law but as onc
ielied upon in all human activiries; both scientific and non scientific. He therefore defrnes

I .e.vidence as a rvnrd o[ relation meaning any matter of-fagl thc effect, tendency or design

rvhich is to.produce in the mind,persuasion concerning the existence of some othei matter
of
of

fact. He creatcd a distinction ibetrveen primary' and evidentlal facts. And this is
trore

bctwccrr
conrnronly cxprcsscrl as .litctuttt prohttndi nnd faclum probons. Thc relationshiP

tlrcsc trvo conccpts lras su[scqucntly bee rl calle<J one Ot relevancy.

.- Qttt'",^'Y[t$
t.,.!!S_!!14-pt:u0.(tnil.!..ntcirlrs facrs in issuc or principle facts. Tlrcsc arc fircts tltitt ;rrc rcqtrirr:t[ to
' \t'r \'.'r1 f'11 1.(
'rt
lrc lrrt-rvctl. t:,,'i'iii'ii i,iiti:iyt rclcrs to c,ridcntial ltrcts. 'l'hcsc irrc llcts tlr:rt are grvcil rrr

givcrr
cvitlclcc ivitlr u vierv to provin-q tlrc facis irt issuc lprinciprl lact;. Wlrcrc tltc ftrct
itt

,li\ N,\)11,.\t.t...,Olt\, l.l,l] (llorrr) i\'lL,l(, l)ip, t,.l'. t,l)C. (Tlris crtrrrlril;rtiotr ir litt'acrrtlcnri':
r,:[clrrrcu grrlr' :rrrrl nollring rrrorc).:rv:ril:tlilc:rt jolttrrtlrtltll:rlcfii'v:tltotl-trrrl"
 i
t
:.
I
I t

i
--' ',.cYidcngc is. (hc sanrc as
thc cvitlcrtcc in lact in issuc; thc evidence is said :
to be dircct, for :

I
instance.in a tnurdcr trial orte of thc issucs is tlcath (stabbing i
. is cviclence of fact) !
I

i
I
'Accordingly BEST cr.iticiscd.thc approaclt takcn by Bcntham and pointed out that t
llciitiiam t
t
was lvrong in giving sonte utritary vicw of eviderrce
applicable in all human activities and
that it rvas capable of dealing rvith all problcrns of evi4ence
i* all courts oi laru. He
rtiaintaincd tlrat thcrc wils a tlistinction bctwccn'thc
apllrohclr rcquircd frir a*y intcrprctation
of any individual arrd thc codificd, bccause of the corrditions
of litigatiorr and the policies of
the courts of larv must carry out. r\ccording to trim
these distinctions give rise to natural and
judicialevidence,
...r:

:
Evidence is part of proccdural taw in rhat it assists us
tp.rrive.at or determine thc proccclurcs
(actions or Lvent5) to bc loilowcd in order to arrive
ai'justice. nuid*., loqsely dbnotgs the
nrean! rvith whicir u fact is provccl. S.2 of E.A dctines
cvidencc as ,ithe mehns by wtrietr any
alleged matter of . fact. thc truth' of rvhich . is
submitted to investigation is proved or
Y-v.r..tl!

disapiroved and it
includcs statcmcnts, ailmissions, and confcssions, judicial
notice,
presumptions of law and ocular (visual or pptical)
observations by court in its judicial
capacity'f , '

Rules of cvidcncc n g.'.

l'. To establislr who has ttre burden.of proof in a givin set of circumstanccs. .: .

2' To prescribe lacts which may be proved and to <ietermine

which facts slrould be adnrittetl
and a combinatlon df the twe reduccs to relevancy and
adnrissibility of evidencc.
3' Prescribe the sratus ol'evidence e.g, opinion, character
or confessions (nature)
- that should be:.cxcluded frorn consideration
.4. To prescribri facti by courts e.g. priviteged
infornration

5' To prescribe nlethods by rvhich proof may be effected or'carrie<J outeg. through oral
testimony, documents artd orltcr cxhibits, use of experts
I
or visiting the sccnc locus quo e.l.c.
'l'ltcsc rttlcs itlso consittcr
thc clltct ol' cvi<lcncc of ccrtairr kincls ol pco,lc c.g. clritcli.cn or
'lunatics
an<J iri sonle cilscs titcsc rutcs rtray insist orr
corroboration.'l'lri.s rvilt bc co..sitlcrctl irr
detai! rvlrcri rlculirrg witlr rvitrrcs:;cs.

6"[hcy prcsctr:c iitc c.\lclll tlIpre'ol'rcquircd rn:r plu'ticularcasc c.g. tirc rvcig6i.ol',rdol'i,
critrtinitl cas':: is dii'fclcnt ti'onr civil cascs nla/ bc different fr-opr tirat ol'r'atrinronial
"vhich
ir;rc! clccli:::i c.rics. [:or-iusll:ucc irr cr.irninal c.rsc.; thc srrudard
ol.1:i.ool.rccluirccl is to provc

'2-
 -,' l' t1

rvhiic irt civil nrattcrs tltc stirrlrl:trcloIprooFisenly

evcrl iiicgiiridri b'cy'chd rcasoilir[.,lc,jcubl
probabilities'
to prove a fact on bal'lrrcc of

company
eenerar Assurance co. Lttr vs Govinder' the appellant
rn orieutal-iriii.rutr
cniitlcd to
against ihe first respondent, claining a declaration tlitt tt O,jt
biorrght an action
and second and
hrst respondenfs policy of third party motor vehicle insurance
avoid the
rvcs '
wcrc joincd ,.,'s
dcfcnda*is, A vchictc orvncd by rhu [rrst rcsporr(.n(
third rcsponrrcnts
trre first'
and third respondents rvere injured;
invorved in an aiciderrt i* which the second
_
Thq'ilPpcl-l"lnl cotttprny
adnrittcd to tlic policc ol[rccr that rrc lrad [:ccn thc drivcr'
respcndcrrt I
party
and trrird respc*dents were. about to institute a third I
bcrieving that the second
clairtring damages which if aviarded'tlic
cornpany
proceeding against the first rcspondent day'
a plaini claimin* ,"
to avoitl nlticv on sanrc
*ouro u.li.ir" ro pay, trlcd
:".:n:tut<i
appellantconlpanygavcnoticc.totlrcsccotrdandtliirdr.csporrdcnts.Grotrrrdo[aptrealin
of t!c( falsc i* a
tirc proposal.lornr rhc lirst rcspontlerrt had nrade resporlscs
Cgmpleting
materiaf particular (atter
indicating niti in the form) ' ,
- : i
t
!

SpryJ.A.I{eitll.Thattiteadnrissionswercadnrissiulllsa..''',.:1"::.::.'.'.otlratthc
(proposrl form) had ndiuttn prot:ed
bt1*.t: o"':n'ury had !
. 't--t ro rrern,l8
talsity of the reply : ' : I
I
I 1
l;
" that this had L

t-:
:";,;;,r* i*u, orwrrethei thc replv was ralse
ina matqrial
:T:tlt]l:-lcld rnaintaining I
I utt threc rcspondpnts had a joint interest in i
r
(and that.bccous.
L_.
not been proved
thc validity of thc poticv'
thc evidence was tl*]:*ld) .
:
:
or l',cr e'llegitions ugainst
*e
tirat if a parry to a suii fair.s o piove his
This case dernonstiaies
dunclard.of proof
fld*s, becausc tho rarv o[.ovidcnqp rcquires a certain
I.t other party, the acticir
L:

t
to makc an
windhanr J.A said;i'th''rt lailtue
:

i. iuliivan vs Alinroh:rrned osntan;

facts alrcgc<r lvas ncccssary
to s'ir"ss' triakesa
ract rvirhiu rrrc iighr or trrc
ot'cr
a*cgarion oI ha<i answered 'a
, snouid bc norcd tirat becirusc thc pllirrt of the first resrro*dcnt
i
clainr bu.,., ri
rvotd "Nil"
i. c..ncctio]r rvith vciricrcs orvncc rvit. tiiu
,.1:.irc.cidcr..ts
rc(iricst for 1:irrtic*rars
'Iitc rrirpcirl rvlui disltrisscti'
rii'.it it was t'lt:licri:rilv [rls':'"

bl tlrC r-()''lriS'";! iirf tirc

.l-h.ir. rJg..rrrti:r Vs !ttlruugisltrr :trttl otltcr$.
tltcrc tvlts a:r lrpplicafitllt
in
by 1)W6 to n I tor rc:l:'ol'ts
rri'corttrltiictir:9
..rccrisc(l io rc::r1;i i'. i,:il(:'[)tri'irQtrll-1 to l)c rrt'tttctt
cicnial cf
-[ir.ri rv,.rrrir.rlr'L rvritc.anythiug sa'rc hcr o\'''u 5r*'ti'llc'
si..c
ar.:ir ,.,rsct,:rirrirr3 i)...v(;.
 t

bcirrg lr qirltl'icrl(l tti Al iriitl tlt;tt lrvL'11 i1 grutlgc to Al inrplicit i. tl.rials to r\1. Atior.ncy
Gt:ttcriti u1''pttsctl tltc ir1;lllicirtiorr lor rcirsQns
lhirt tlrc c.ust.,rly of ihc lc(tcr hctrvccI lhc statc
or
rvrilitrl :ttttl li,rv lurtirt't l:ccrt csi:rbli:;licrl tlrc :rrrtlr.r'
.l'llrc lcIcr.h;rtlrr,l r:t.crr ;rrrilrcrriic;rrcrl.
l)w-5 lr rcllrlit'c ,l'both rtcciisctl arlt! l'w(r
s.tir(cd thirt rlrc 2 lratl ,o irl'r.irs l)cc:rusc
tircy irrc
rcl.rccl' C.trrt'lrcltt tlr^t thc q,,.rtion ol'actnrissibirity . ,,n,..,5,
ol'a piccc o['cvirlc,cc,-,',;,;r.;, .r
docurltcntary dcpendcd on whethcr it was 51:;;tt"
relcvant to thc issue before the court. oth.nrisc'i))
' the court record woul'l be filed with all
types of cvidence which was not sufficiently
relevant
and they inay tc.nd to prolong the trial unnecesiarily
because of the immaterial matter.
1 Anrong thc exccptiQns was that affccting ih"
credibility qf a witncss or inrpeacl:ing his .
credit' In tlris Gasc' therc was no sufficient proof
that the retter was rvritten by pw6 or at her
reqrrcst, hcncc it was inadnrissiblc

In Struggti [nsurance co' Ltd vs Pan..Africaq

I I
Insurance Co. Ltd (1990-9r) rtcB 46,at
the conttttct)cctncttl. of tlrc lriat' counscl
for plaintil'f.lcd cvidcncc tolshow that thc dcfcrrdant
.
: company didn't exist' counsel for defendant'objected
:
:
to this cvidence on grounds.thet the
I
'pcitiricnt issuc
bclorc court was whcthcr thc company
ownbd.thc suit prcnris=.s ana thcrclorc ,;1,
.|
evidence'.to prove non cxistence of the
{efendant company was inelevant. court held that
I
thg issuc iyhether thc dcfendant company ' l f;
has ceased to .iirt i, not a facr '
irrisruu ;; ; -;;
not pleadqd'{hcrefore evidencc to prove its
irgn existerice was not admissible:

ln lt'v l(irrji (t940) ? l'l,'cA 58, (lre Appctlant appealcd,fronr a co,victio'

of *ruriJcr. Thc
killcd rvitlt a daggcr. Evidence was adnritteg of
the fact rtrat just prior to
lttt.nt9o,ltesr,lecn
tlr.c dcallr'ol'thc dcccascri. the accuscd had
lssauited the ctcceased,s brothcr rvith a daggcr and.
had uttercd threats against the deccased and cour.t Helcr
that evidence of the attack on the
dcccascd"s brothcr rvas atlrttissiblc. in thc circumstanccs
as part of tlrc rcsgcstac. lvhitlcy c..I
( cited \voodrotfe and Ameeri casc) and lurther held that
rl ', whett rwo acts of att accuscd
lr are so inleriroyitt os n
lr (t r ttt o lha soutO tt is ttot propu to sht( out
dvidence 'o! oue of thc octs evett rhouglt ir may invoive introtluctttg eyitlettce
il d ttte
coturttissiott bl ot.tolltu olfencc rhe nccttsel," Thus the fact that the accusecl
h)'
had a dagger
and used it immediately'beforc the alleged killing by
,- him of the deceased must bti
Go
,
adnris'sible as strong cvictence of thc fact that
he was responsibte for thc rleccascd,s dcath.
The'case illustrates the principle olrelevant
and admissible facts to explain the fact in issub.
 LAW APPi.,ICABLE
statutory. NlOst oi rvfuich is tculd in the eyidence Act
.Ugn*rl..r's.law oi'Lvid,:ncc is b'.rsicaily
oi thc law is derived from the lndian sr'atutes of evicience and 6specially
Cap (6). The bulk
a6 attenrpt to codify Englistr contnlou
ia''v
thc indirn cvidcrtcc Act oi'1872 which itscl['rvas

postttotr

to be fqund in tlte
Some o[ the 4,'t[lei-.Jiq.q ilg;!W$sn,*gq9.n,l3w-1Ld.,$lty,to5/ $aw ;are
the
requirements for conoborat ion. There is
a higher iequirement for corroboration under
under the Indian Act, one neOded more than
lndian Act, than under common law'' Because
whilc undcr comrnon raw one corroborating witness-
r^o- 'c-'tJ \^..
ohc piccc of corroborating cvidcnce

i-
I
I
I
I

anY,
of dying declantions' Uader the In'dian reqim;;
A*otbp,r difference lies in the trcatment
wourd be relevant''
statement made concerning the death or the pcrson now deceased
in for
undcr the common law.thcrc.irad to be an eminent expectation of death grder
whereas
l thc statements made by thc deceascd.person
to qualify as dying doclaration'

n
Ir set up in East Act'
U by ordcr in council, it was provided thatponsular courts to be
ln the 1899
jtrsiics and itwas
itatutes in trrc administratiorr of
Thcsc wcre.cxpccted to appry thc lndian
From that timc' havc ltad':*t:*t::
*ot until 1909 that a local statute ivas crracte{ 1 I
were anendments
1935, [955, i97i and i* 1985' Thcre
I
lcgislation amending tliis {ct, c.g. in I
t

by accuse<i liersons (confessions). other statrites.that

t
u rhat mostry aflected statclncnts nrade
(23)' pd
ri the Ugandan laui oi cviddncc include the trial on indictments Act' cap
affected
tribunals
u (Bankcrs books) Act Cap (?)' Foreign
Courts Act Cap (16): The'cVidcncc
filpgistrate
Ar! thesc laws
evidenceftct cap (i0), the
gathsflci cap (rg) andQhildrensAct cap (5g).
n
proccdures relating to evidcnce'
ll
provide several principics ahtl
r-

tNl.i..ltI,ltl',t.;\.t.loN^NDSCoPiioI;.fttliE,VIl)liNCti;\C.l'
l-!rc i,.1,:lr oi'ttrr!':',:-.i:iori is io i)i:i rogciilcr
itti'""rittctr llrrv c'g' cotliil\oil lltrv'1li'ittciplcs'

'r,..rr.;..'il. r!:lrL c.rltljc;rtr'rli ii;';',ctr.'' rlilt':r ;t:ili:icl:lr L(tlllc

lll) itltr'tiiirl:rtil''viiit t"ilttit: tu
.;..ii,:rlt.:r ct)d,]s ttllrst [)c ttri-j!.1)Ij:cti r'.,itit
iil:.; t;i.titc,:.:.t:t:i:l i:l::i.cS lirilt ll:.i::c ts
it:,.,:rilitl'atrctti
-[ilts qrrc:;tiotr itt'osc ttl tirc citse o[ \Yill';rct: "lohrisori Vs
.,,:tcrcr.cc'.c c()t'.'.'l'loii l1r'".
 a

-: \- i ---:,it rvas
,- ..,^.-tr,-lrl where the words of
tlret t1:.'-.,:;.:;'.;.
a section
lrcl<i that
r;;,,I.,iic (1940) I ALI'liR 1ot'.tut:*tt ttren any constiucticn or
a whore law on trre subrect,
are irrterrclecr.to..contain clauscs clcrivcd irorn arry
r:e.f rce o[ arry irrtcrpretationsr
intcrf rc.tation srrourd hovtevcr atrthoritative
it
positions of the raw of Englancl
interporations or ex-
maY be-

not be defeated if :

' rcn admitted that the object of codification should be'

Horvcvcr' it has bc and t'at therefQre in
dish cases'
to intdrpretation. was sought
express refcrencs :t..'":l::t.::t:r";;-;ded. in
and
interpretingcgdes,wenrustlookatthcwordsandattachtothemiheme.aningintended.In
u
casc' othci E,Aslcs n*"
'R1n'in
addition to the abovl ':.::It1.*t' ':::: l:,o
r'tor."*^iit-rvas in'1he'marn
coulr hettl rhat alrriough thc indian
Khosra (194?) t4EAcA
codifrcation of ttie English
or clia1 tce,where.adeviationoccurs,:heActJnus!prev1u::.i
doesnlt {19*
casc' it ,rvpd thrit EngliSh larlr
*]t:oU:'' ,
English casc law;.
tn inis particular
ttlt:
. ttrai has I is
;";1n;i'r,,o
the ascused '
ptr:vious offe*ces by
prosccurib' to pioV. si*ilar 1 l:^tn*
vs statcnhome 'i
t'c offcrrcc.'lrowcvcr, iu thc casc of ltcrln'ole* t{
iikcly io hayc coirrmittctl
l.g3,.court hcld; thar rhc
Agt shourd ,*
on iakcn to 1x.91yde'.itut'l*to -
(rqs$ ?8
'(LR cases'
' airthority of English

SCOPE OF THE EVIDENqE'^CT :

'
in or bef11c tl,t
olr'appty io uir iuoiciril:iri'pccstiirigs
tliat;". this act t
S. I o( the liA p'roviclcs the magis:t:::1
rurt artd all courts established lndcq ,
suprenie csurr, court
of ltlPtul: hlgh I :::; ;" anv proq- - -
oroqtcdirrge bcforc '
prcsentc<l to anv *u1t:"::':* nor to
^"v
;;;", *, no1 t9 nffidtvits

anyarbitiation.,::thisprovisionimptiesthattheActshattapptytoatlperSonsappearing
all mattcrs U;forc coults in Uganda' Thc
act docsn't ' '
cxccption and to
bcforc cotrrts witirorrt under the M'C'A
thcre is no establishment
counqil courls because
however aPPIY to'liocal
1 ' Vs
:

'r in r ^-'t^n' overseas

London Trading Co' Lttt
Tradit
cxcludcs afl
idavits' ^vprseas
Ths'section cxpressly registrar of
I against a rejecrion by
Ri
appellant's attcmpt to register the trade mark
Lr'.rdcnrarks o[ ths
i.knorvnlaleigh.Itwasheldtlrattheeviclenceordinance
phonetically soun{ed like thc bettet
to any court'
/ rJidn't apply ro affrdavits preserrted
doesn,t
for the trade
Tobacco Co, the appricatiou
No. g274 by American
rn *.e- Tradc npplication adve(ised
trs Burmu.a a.d claimed trrat it rrad beeu
rcgister rrrc courpany
mark purporl.cd to
 is a rvcll knowrt g cographical
iipitiic'.rtioll wils opposcd bcctltrsc-llttrntucla
irr,tire g,v.tt..'Ihc evidence o[
be a trade nrark' lt was also opposed because'the
noI
area and thercfore could .t'consistedofphotocopiesofthegazbtteinwhichthe
ro rh'lj
*u, *t.ther the evidence A&
1,:::':::x.j1T;:H:T;,';,,,; Act wtiiih'det-rncs
lonriedcourt to'
was rcsolved with refcrenco to s.2 of the
registration? Th1issuc
I and ttris included the
,, a* perso.s- regalry authorised to take evide*ce
j .lnean and incrude;

rcgistrar "
t-
tj Act modificd tlrc cvidencc' Aqt' wi$
regard to'
(Karamoja)
Thc atlrrrirtistration of iusticc regarding the
This Act relaxed the law
t ' in Kafamoja by Karamajong'

it allowed foi the adrtiission

of statemet
burden'of proof e.'g'
offtcei'
Ii found or of any statemetit'made
to any ;rolice i

I fyp es/categoiies of
evitlence

trrls hct witt bc

t H::::::[:::];:,1.l,l:',,,u.n..
wrrjch estabrishes a ract lqci

.presumedtoexisttrrtlcssthcrciscontraucvi$1nco.c.g.trnder.theSalcofgoo<lsActonce'a
I rccc!pghasbccnissucd,it,sprintaracigwidcnocofn1vm;nt..UndertheaitlsoiE^.hung.
cxchllecil niiml facie prcsumcl
party to

Acr, any person w'o

signs a biltof
is:a cheque and thus
"::
:I transactionto which tne bitt relates'
en 9*"*pt9 o Otll tt exchangel
:t
.whoev.rsignsorendorsesaclrcqueboqomesp'alytoitandpanbe':sued.Thisisan
I

L
"*".o.,on.o.n.doctiiricofprivity'oi.9ontoct1nderlaw.ofcontract.
re L^ ^anrradic.ted- i.e. it's enough

[, Conclusiveevider.ceisthatevidencervhichif.adducedcarr.tbecontradicted. that a
absolute is concl*s.ive evidenco

:I
e.g n decree
a particular directiqin.
to make a [rnding in
dissolvcd'
I marriage has becri

in
it- o[ li rnutcrial trring i.c.
thai, which can be touc'cd' seen' snrelt'
[t
Rcai cvide*cc is evirrc*cc as cvi.c'cc" This
tcrnr is
prrysicar uaturc adduccd
rv'ich arc of a
may also rcfc,i lc ircnrs thc purposc is.
A.or.lor rnay be nrodu3ld
to e-rhibits.
normail.i usecl in refcrerrce ]..i:::::an<J
ttlirntlt:trttltcct)l,,lclltstr!.lllltttrtro}:.il.tiicrssrrcisivltctlrcrtlrcbookcristsotitclllrcrrtlrc
book\lccotltcrrc:r!':r'tticttcctli'ittclrsct'i''tlittqcrl-'cvitluttcctti'1"r"tvittt1lt:'|tir'lliitrllc0l'tirc
li,..cl:sc(lc.rltl:c.ttl(t.j,.tt..l,:rttrviiiclrctrlttltitt:;rhc[orgcclsignltttrrcitrttltlti::clttttlc:rtltitructiits
iil illc ct itttc tr: it;t gtt'y
ci tttct"tjc litr'::rtg lit': 'rcct':'c(i
 tlr rcquircs to
1 -- p()rl11its'
- - -.:.r.r ., .1e.-rr\s nll stirtctrrr:ttrli vlltir:lt thc ctlrttt
sr:ctiotr
Or.f ",iOttrcc tttrtlcr '**t:':: ,"'"..,,,,,.,,,'.,, t,, rrrrtlr:r irrtltttry',
ruirrt.r'l ut'fucr
in rcratitrn.ttl
bc r...rtlc bcrorr:
it lly rvitrrcsscs.

---'^" I'n it'l two wilylil

"t"rl or
rrrc cvidcncc "
antr trrcrcro,c,,1c41,s
:iT[:ffi-,,*1Jil.:]::,:r:il:::
fclt
or' thc fact in issue
pcrsoll w5o sarv /
heard/ issue is dircctly
g.:::i
b) when it's distin
::: I:xlff
to u tttt.:t::
:,:':::.;:,:: ;::,:. from'[he nature

perceived as conrpared
(
341' Cars that had been
:]:1"-r" (1962) EA 345,
A'hmetl Vs Reputtlic
".",*t,.
of events.' For instance' in Nail
thc accusc$ on
rvith the [rnger prints of '::::::::t;:::T:J::
: stolcu rvcrc. rebtivcrcd
c'nv c'l'lhe

Il,hltili i:l'ilJlit}'[.:JT::H::ll';'1";".,. il
'
acc, scc' n.,*on' o'
the cars nnd parts
::i ::':: ;:*.,*:: :ll :i[;T]'il::Ti[1];T
of the cars ln -" - was suffrcien'i
'[here
*i1 ,::1.
'
ract,hai
circtrntstnntial c''tidcncc
to conl::::,:.*:::ffi*;X;Xte'
'/ ' s the'hct that tho finger Pdn's 9f
: *1*:*a*;;;.,
whar amourrtcd t6 cilult.niral no!& firey-courd
ln tliis case,
': - of the stolen catS :-. -'
parts q
thc accusid ${erc
louno "":-^;:';""". court reliedion jciriumstar}cas sl-rnoundini; !t
lund- on several

explaincd, *:...*
I
t vs Rspubtttltollt-
accusg{. tn singh
offcnce of thcft
ant
J cor.rvicrccl the
it's
'comnrissibn of fhc ne rvould bc disrcgardcd unlcss
stands alo-'
:. cvidcrrce when it
observcd thtlt clfc:unrstarr[ial ' .

thc lrypothcsis
of irinocence'
^^pnr.(1 :

inconsistcnt with
' r -'-:- ^.
or cxphni but onlY
^vnl:rnttion
: ot
rvoqtls;, it shoultl'not bc cap'ablc ^n',:-:*t''hYPothesis
ln otltcr
.pointing.oon."on.lusion,that.itwasthe'accused.whocommittedtheoffencq
t
evidcticg S'4
AdmissibititY of
a
a

I
pa(icular items o[
evidence
or teicct
cou't w*l acccpt
,*ris urcans trrc proccss lry rvrrich thc any item is cxcluded
by
and rvhether
rre relevant or not
whcrhcr tirosc itcnrs t:::::::::::'"tJ
to ilrc'S'4 of EA '
depending on
c"'itlctlcc' Accorclirrg
takcrt in :rs
l'.rrv tioirr bcirrg

arrysuitorproceedirrgoftlreexistenccornonexistenccofevery'facttntsl
tltltcrt..rctsitsitfclrcrcirlicrtlccl..rrcdto[tcrclcv..ttrtirtrrtoftroothcrs..
<.
 ;,

Facts in issue S'2

fact lronr which either by itself'or in
This is defined in-S.2 of UE,A to mean ancl inciude "any
connection with.other facts, the cxistcncc, non
- existencc, natur'b cr extent of arry right'
proceeding n'ecessarily.[otlowed'" '
liability or disability assertcd or any denied in any suit or
which must be ansrvered one way 0r
Ordinarily in suiis, partics arc irlviied to fr-ame issues
in issue and once framed,the parties are
the other. These issues 1rq liamcd around the facts

expe.ctcd to producc evidcncc. that is conllnccl to

thosc isst:cs and arc 8cncr0.1l)' not allowcd

Proceciure Rules Sl'71-l' Ortier

to go beyond tltose issucs. This is provided for under Civil
itris,, whcn ir nrirtbrial
r5 (l) of the Civil lrroccdurc Rulcs proviclcs intcr alia that issucs
party and de*ied by thc other party. lt
proposition of raw or. lact is affirmed by trre one
cif law and issues of fact'This relates to
provides further that issues are 6f trvo kinds; issues
'civitmatteis only. Though in criminal matters, the issues are always whether the accused
this
has. any defences such as alibi e.t-c,
I
persons.committed the offence and whether he/she
cOmmitted the offence'
may raise.issues o[ fact like whether the accused - ,
'
I .

.:
I

j :

,.:
ll
T
t,is means anC inc'iudes. lt
: ' i
'1 '

U a)Anything,statcofihng'orrcla[ionofihings.capableo|bcingpcrccivcdbythcScnscs,
th9
consclous, aocording to the EA, it's only
b) Any mental condition'of which any person'is
I evidence df facts in issue irnd of relevant
facts vthich ar.e adrnissible' : I

i
RelevancY;
oIevents'
r: where by'according to the comtllon clYse "
l: This is a.relationship between two factb
llLJ probable
one fact tiken either by itself or
in con.cction with cther facts, proves or rendcrs
provides 'that
existence. of other fdcts'' S'4 of the E'A
i: past, piesellt or futurc existence or non
! subject to any other law, evidcnce'irhf
be givcn in any proceedirlgs of t5c cxistencc
or non

of such ot'cr iacts as decraied retc'rant au<i o[*o o"hers'"

I', existcnce of c.rery fact in issuc and
li and ifs only matters
Berween S.4 antl S.5l of EA the words relevantly is repeate<ily used
uudcr the
are lcgally rcccgnised as rclevant' Lcgal relcvrince
appearing in thesc sections that
logicar rcicvaucc i.c. nor. ulr thar. are logically rclcvant
E,A is not *cccssirriry sarlrc as 'irattcrs
arc a<Jmissibic trrrcl this is
why S 4 is rcslrtctt"'c

cisctrssctl thc rclatiorrsltip bcl'wccn

lcgical
lil (.lrrnrlril \:5 R:rklruktrutlil, thc t':'ivy Coitrlcir
tsstr':s;') tr'l tttltttc tirc (irll.r'viris ()t'scl\':ill()lii: '
.riti icgu! rct,:r.,itrcc. Itl r'.J\xlvliltl 1l:c
I

- [. That Ugurda l]videncg Act lays dorvrt nrattcrs

- to bc consi4erctl i1 asccrtaini*g.tlrc t^rth
2. Thirl thc ilct.col.ltains thc ivhole law oIcvirlcrrcc

f"fh:rt rvlt;rt is ctlr.ttltirtctl iil ltrc.act is l rcstrlr ol'thc lonr,, c.rllcricncc.l'slrilii*g tlrc various
catcgorics ol'qvidcircc rttttl wirittcvcr is lcli orrt is ilrclcvirnt,
is thc rcjcct, s.spcct, a.d ifs
likcly to tiisgrrisc or colorrr tlrc truth. :

Thc larv rnrrkcs hcar say in adnrissiblc.an<l nrakcs opinion

cvi<iengb gcne.rally inadmissible
hncl it orrly bccontcs rclcvitnl if it's thc opinion
of an cxpcrrrc6f tnrv flurt6cr proviclcs that'thc
cltaracter o[ the person is gerrcralty inelevant although
in ordinary life these marters would
bc inrportant irr dcciding whcther a pcrson is capablq of
ccrtain ac.tions. On thc other hand,
thg law of evidence includes matters rvhic,h are not
i
neccssarily relevant iogically.
a-
..:
, Rblevancy antl.admlssipitity,.,
I l-
'The genera! piinciplc.
is that onic evidcnce is admissible, the manner of its procuremgnt
is:
not impqrtant. [n.l(uruma Vs. R (195s) 22 EACA
364iThe poiic., went to the houseof the
accusid u,itlrbtit f, scarclr warrant and in thc proccss
of searching foyn$ ,o*. incriminating
articles al$ this was tehdcrcd in court. The accused argued
that sincc-bvidence had been'
obtainetl itlcgally; it shoutd not bc adtnittcd on. appcal it rvas.
Court Llcltt that thc methocl g[.
qbtaining evidenge incf.evapt and wlrat i, ,et.v*t'is
is that the ividence has ;..;;;;.;

NB' Tlris'general rulq doesn'i apply io admissibility of confessions,,because confessions

rnilst bc obtained voluntarily.

Rc.s gc.stne/ rncts forrni,F part oi ilrc trlnsnction

'l'his ternr is used to cottnect
acts. declarations and circunrstances constifutirrg, ilccompanying
:

or cxplaining a lact or a transilctirirr in issuc. lt's thcrclore

assumecl that t5crc is a iran.sactibn
in issue or a pri;iciplc fact and whar constirutcs res gesrae are trrose other facts rvrrich are in
rclationship s'itli the fact in issuc. Tlris cloctrine is viiiblc
throughout sections 4-15 of UEA.
In R Vs l(urji. in this cirse thc accuscd had assaulted the deceased
twice with a dagger prior
to his tlcnrh. Corirr lreltl lhat tlrc t,uo circurrrstarrccs oI statrbing thc clcccasecl brsthcr and
standing over the dcceascd's brother wcre so interconnected that thrstabbing
the stabbing of
tltc dcccased's brolltcr illtrst bc fcgartlcrl as part of the rcs gcstoc at thc trial cf thc accuscd
for the murdcr of thc tlcccascd ancl that cvidcncc was admissible thcugli it
tcnclc<i to rcvcal
 6d"*&^9- A^. Or 9o*&\8* I

comnrission of a scparatc offcncc. i

rhe accused was convicted o[manslaughier
qf a boy by
In Maki*cli vs R t iqori EA i27,
rrhtler S'5 of EA
beating, evidelcc o[prcvious'bcatingswas heid onappeal to bc adrnissiblb , :- .
- had been the blows in questton
in explanation anri substautiation of thc cause'of tieath which

acting on top oi thc'61oocl dots causgd by prcvious hacmorrhages

CONERAL BLBMENTS OF RDS CDSTAD ,;"i :

eve:nh and must eiPlain'or throw' I

The statements or declaratiori crlust relate to. thc mqin
t
il;;;;;;;;cvcn, W ?v-v* U/^oi i :
!

: d ,'.'
2. The statement / dcclaration musl bclttural growirig'otit'o( events and ntust
<Jcclaration
n-.):' not .
not be a mere nanation o[ fast ev'ens: the incident claimed tci be-par( qf res B"vStae nlust

ocoui aiter the transaclion is Complere. In Ranta'Jhin tsrnail Vs & r\ yotrng fiitl *as dct-rled
.: her
and shc weni.straight to hgr. hopre cryinBi hcr homc waS 2 oq.3. houses a.wAy aird slrs-told
the house were she had been
father ( parent) whuit hatl happencd. Slie then led het fatheg !o ,:
ithis is tliclbpanu'r' tt vlalhcld tlu.t this.
assauitetl and,pointcd,thrt tlic accuscd had'said tllaf
jt
utterance couldn be considered as.Iql gestaebecaiise
it was a nanuJbn, [t was fur,tlrer neU
'
that in matters of rcs gcstaC niinutcs.arc a niatter' of
utmost inlp'grtqnqc i'' . ' '

t-l
nQt an cxprcspiop of opiniotr or
t

-)
j. Tire statcmenr/ declaration:n1ust.be a slaiement of fact and
rinrg timc or sin\irltaneous) with
t
the occurrence.of the cveht.
pa(icipated [n the transaction / who
rl 4.Thc statemehr/ declaraiion musi be by a party'who
.l
t-
t.j v/as a rvitness to thb erient in..iisue

l'1
li
U PARTICUTARASPBC,TSoFRESGESTAEINDE,TAIL
rvhich
,.. l. S.5 deals with tacts fornting part of
the same transaqtiorl. It provides that factS
rvith trrc facts in issue as to [o'ur part of the
'l' sanrc
IJ
though not in issuc {rc so ton*cctcd
occrrrrcd at tirc sanre tirne a.d 1:hcc or
dit'l'crcrrtly'E'g'
trarrsactio* arr: rcir:vlnt r,,,irctrrcr tli,;y
dagger prior
assatrltcd the deccasQd twicc rvitS r
in R Vs l(ur.,i, in rSis cusc tltc uccttsc6 hacl
lrrt*ho :trttl.
ro his tlc*t5. C.urt lrr:ltl tlurt thc 2 circtrnrstirnccs ut'stlblting tltc tlccc:t:sctl
wcrc so intcrct;:incctctr tlurt thr: stutrbing${-sktl's$8of
sta*tri,g uvcr thc dcccusctl,s tlrothcr
as llart of trrc rcs Rcst(tc at tl',c ti'ial of
the accuscd
the dcceascd,s br.ot'cr r,ust bc rcgartrccr
tirat cvitt,:u,:c ',.,us adniissrblc thotrgh il lctrtlcti
t'tt l'cvca!
lor tirc uiurtJci uIlhc dcccirsccl unrl
 collt:iiissiorl of x scparxtc o[[cncr:

IIcrc tirc .litct ctltrtcs lllottl ;ts rt.rcs.rrlt iri.r lr;rns:rctiorr tvltictr c:rn l:c c.rpl:rirrcrl hy scc.irrlary
tircts and tltcsc arc rvltltL arc callcd rcs gcstlrc. Undcr S.5 tacts constituting the
samc
tritrrsactiott cl,,', r,,tiy lrc itttrurlrrcctl [trr ptrr'puscs olc.rpl:rirrilg tlic lircl.irr
isjrrc

Oilrcr clcritcltts tiI rcs 8c.\tilc rvttultl bc :rrlnrissihlc c\ccpt thlt s.5 spr:r.ilir:rrlly
.. lrrgvii[r:s tlurr
titttc tnay rtol be itrtportartt. S.-5 is applicirblc to both ci.ril and criminal procec6ings and the
question oIirnportance of tirne wili ultinrately depcnd on the.nature
of ih. casc. For instance
in cases'opurularrand-lhsft, the timc ai which the qffence was c omitted is very
irnportunt.

2: 5.6 dcals ,ivittr. tacts

rvlriclr arc'/ had. occasignr. .e.us. or cffcct. to ttrc t:lcts in issuc.
'Under this aspect, any. fact thai could'bc thc iause otthe fact in issuc ii relevant. 5.6
': :

provldes "..that lacts which'are.the ociasion, cause 0r effect, immcdiatg or otherwisc o(

rele.vaht facts i factS in issue or, wtrich .onriitut, ihe state of Uings ,nder whichlth" o11.n
"i
in issuc.happcned or rvlricir affordcrl a[ opportunity for their occurarrce/ tia.saction arcr,;;ri;,,
't
obtairring bribes .*i:,'.
''l':'
j
I

'
"otri;r;;r;il* -li
and prosccutiort. brought cvidtnce lb show iho appcllanr's pr.vinus:

Kara. Thc Couri Hild ihat as,ihe evidericc o[ tlrc previous contrpt iruiisaction.qlso
conccrnctlK;rr.ir.,strchcVi<tcrlcgwilsddllrissitilc.ttshorvcclti.,.stot"o[ilrirr8,strnilcrwiriiirtlrc
oft'incc irt isstrc lrappcnccl. Tltcre w?s a connectiijn betiveen the previous ,i,-,rilo1. oflcnce and
'the
a- offence chargect. . '. ' '. :

I
LJ
In John Murly Larvrence Broryp and irthers Vs R ( 1957) EA 37t, thc issuc was whether
previous conspiracy rvere lglevant under s.o *irr,n" u..rr;u-;.;uy,ri.a
for rhc
E
comurission of an offcncc. Tltc court heitl that prcvious .corrspirucics .cau bc takcn into
n account to e3tablish a point of .possesiion. Under 5.6 the act of dectaratiorr should have
ll
1:roviclcd irt tcntts of tirlie with thc fact in issue. They should happcp alprost at tlrc samc tirnc.

ln :rrklitioir, liu:ls tlrirt :rliirrrl irn oFi)ortunity to brirrg about tho llrt irr issrrc irrc rulcvirnt c.g.
tinlc, placc, plrysical prcscncc. ability. ln civil proccedingr, S.g nray be used to shorv what
t

c:trtsr:tl s,,,ttcfltttt1l ttr lt) slturv tvlt;rl rv:rs c:rrrsctl by thc lirct irr issrrc:rrrrl tlis rvill :rs.sist thc

cotlrt to irll;ltrrtiort liatritity artd ltr lrclp in tltc asscssnrclt ol- <lapr;rgcs tjlr iirstapcc ulclcr
ctutril:utory ncgligcncc. il'it is.prcvctl to court that citht:r wils at cqual Intrlt, thcri eirch party

'.r'rll bc lilblc tt, t-ltc c\tcnt ttl-iis ctlrttrit:rrtitrn lorrirr<ls thc rccitlcnt.

1
 prcviorrs or Sttllsetlttcttt cotttlrtct as partof reS.
3:S.7 prOvides [or nr0ti..,e, prcparatiott lttttl
gestde..Motive is what actually influcrtces a pcrson
to ilct irr a prrticrrlar.way' undcr thc
cases in the
pena! co.de, especialiy in strict liability offcnccs, rnotivc is irrclcvartt irl rnost
so far as it
asscssr.e*t o[.crinri*irr tiabirity but it nray bc rcrcvant to tl'ic larv ol cvids*ce in

establishes rhe cause of thc crlnle. Motivc rnay

bc a fcar or a dcsirc that' 'brings abou[ a
tlcrivcd frotn circuntstances and
particular activit,v. Motive is a'nrgnl.ai statc alld is thcrclorc
; rctdtionships arrd carr bc r:stablishetl. from tltc pcrson's worcls or actiolls or looi.<s' .

' '' I

are rclc vant and admissiUtt' e"poration

Under S.7 preparation of facts constitutirtg motive
go
refers. to plans to bring about particurar.
events. In briminal raw, ofleriQqs *orrirally
'the act' r
stages; -inteirtion- ptepdration" attunpt and executiori of
through four distinctive
a!so. punish at thc sccond
orilr,ty law punirtr., uithe third and fouith stage5 but may
rhe
about
stage..prepararion amounts to compteting
all the necessary pre-requisites
1!Uringing
tt nonnally involvcs procuring or acquiring
articlcs of nrischie* t! tt:11 b.'
rhc riiing.
.parirrgtltetocusforthepreparationtsrelevant.Thisin
posse.ssion of counterfcit articles / pre
thc comnnission of an offcncc'
crinnirial law may be ,;vidence o[ aicling
,t.

f-:
I
, (19S8-90) IICB'5r the appelt4rrll betonfed
t'
t-, ln Tinkanranyire arrcl anothcr Ys Ugarida .

.diffcrcnt beriqfs, thc appcilarrt idcntiried the victim to some security-operaiio,rs.and $c.
I
irreievant in
victim was :d there after. Held; that motive is generally
afrcste:::::.':ffi;
comrnit an
' a pcrson i n normal scnscs
crirninal cascs btrt nrty bc uselul b'ccauic "uu'on't
this case' it was'fair for the tri'al
" :offer,ce r'.'ilhout a motivc and tlrat in thc circurnstances of
rb his scct.
;-o[ thc vicri'r beqa,se he was convcrrirs niembcrs of tlreirsecr
l'
;;;;;
.J:.\
I _;; .

\ to iisters-'
(rgg?) HCB l1,.the accused and trre victim were nlirrried
! Ln Bitivi;e vs uga.dr
appellant had
Evidence was led to s'orv that thc
!
t.-
: .o'd
werc pronri,rl,.,t t usin.ssilcn in Kabarc.
victinr bur their attempts were unsuccessful.
on the day whcn thc
(-l
liIr hircd assassius to kill the
the
t,-
vicrim."o;;; ,n. ui.,i* was a esco(ing the appe[a*r home,
apperrant visitcd the
case, the absence oI motive
ought to
vicrirn was s'ot and kilred. It ryai held trrat in a weak
bccortsiticrcriillfiilvottroftlrcacctrsc.Jbccattscasallcpersor.wotrl,]rtotttornrattykilt
r:rlti:,,'t iiri l:r, t i';t'.tltt ;rl 'til

I !rr ug:r*tr:r *s rlirri r(urrrl:r s/() t(rr.ctl:rrrti.r (r9ns)

rscstirblisircd'bc.:otttcs:rrclc.-lailitatctibrtlct.Jrrititiitt'dlntclltloll
tcr! r2, crrurt rtcttl thut *'*c';c
rttottvt)
 '(rJ
r2t v l''
Il.rcvious conduct; tlris is corttluct lxtorc thc retWftrct in issuc is brought about, it riray

.ingludenrotive. to'conrnrit an offcncc. Thc means of bringing about a particutar fact in issue
tnay involve preparatien. It cotitd also include previous attempts.or declarations of intent or.
' threats. ln ltobo Vs R (1926) I.0 KLlf 55, Previous and subseclugntconduct i,', cases oirape

and allied offences was discussed, court Held that complaints of sucli victinrs of'such
- offences if made at the first reasonable time after the o.ffence are admissibte.. The compiaint

bcing indicativc of the contplaint's statc of ntind and thereforg on thc complaint's cgnduct
although it nray not as on it's own.establish thc fagts contplained of.

ln H:rrris !s DltP, thc aplrcllant apllcalcd against convictiort on accouut of 'thcft and

prosecution adduced of 7 previous thefts. Held that thg evidence these previous acts could

only bc adnriitcd whcrc'the accuscd had pleaded accident / mistakc aq his rlelenlcs.

NB: Kayamba Vo Kitambo Vs R (1942) I TLR258 (READ) .

In Perltins Vs Jeffrey, Evidence of a complairiant was a.dr.nitled becaus'e she was not

mistaken abdut hcr identil-rcation stating that thc dcfcndant had donc thc sbmq thing on 2
. ^;1,1
.?:.

: previous ocQasiont_ Court held that the evidence of qhc.. nge1i9ul complainant t"ut
",1i,,.
.

aecideni .'i
inirdmigs.iblgbccausc tlrc dcfcnrlant-lrad not put up a dofcncc oi r:nistakc pr
:
.::.
In Wallri rnd another Vs Uganda Ct968) E'A,i78, dvidqnccr,rrasadqittbd of a.previous ,

.i
murder as ya.s a subscquent cbnfession io ilic policg as weli as thc pro.perty foun<I with'one
of the appeltdnts'aft6r the death.of the deieased..Iletd that such eyidQnce yas prgpsrly
n admittcd bc0ause ir went to show that the appellant had comrnitied thc offciice and various
li
LJ
pieces of evidence had corroborated with each other. That evi.dence.of prior acts.can bc
(- adnrittcd ifit serves to sltorv dcsigr/ pattern. . '
!.

I.I In R Vi Smtth, the appcliant was convictcd of nturdcring a woman rvliom had nrarried while

still in a subsisting rnarriagc. Thc lady in hcr bath inrmcdiatcly aftcr ruaking a finauciul
.:
stiltct'ncnt lirvouriug thc uccuscrl. tivirlcncu wils adducccl rclirting to lhc..othcr dcirths of 2

other rvonrcrt rvho also tuaclc linancial statctttcttts favouring hint.

l{cli; thar tlrc cvirJcncc oI prior acts woukl bc udmittcd to rcbut the infcrencc olaccident.

In Scrratlc,i's casc; thc accusccl'wls convictccl of thc rnurder of a girl atld cvidcnce addLrced

to sirorv to ltrcvious rlurrlcr oI girls, hc hacl lrccn kcpt iu n rnctttal :rsylurrl [rut hc csc:$ed aucl
 he admittct! the kirling of 2 girrs btrr rJenied
kiliing rtrc rhi*t. rtcttt trrar, thc c{'idence o[
llcc,rusc ol'tli': 'iritillr;'ii'" Itiil' ulltt'
prcvi.trs killi*,ls n.,,r r.i.*,,,rr iu csral-.!islrirlt itlr:ntity 1

tlcrrths. i

ctttit'l hcitl that

l)a!'ts]' c('tiIill...
tilc
l*.N:rz.il ;\gi:rcd Vst l(
ll (1962) i'15
r1.96?l lir\
li-r\ i'15{liugcrltiittts citr l)a''ts}'
utr tltc car

(rnc thiirg, theL tirq accusctl conlriliitctl tlruio[{'cncc irt

li*gcr pri'ts ou ihc cilr l)urts 1i'irrtcr! to I
tl'.c circtrrrtstilllccs. i
I
i
I
.1.
*o'itnt Person
re event i'e" the way
occurance of.the
subsequent con,Sict; This nray explain-the : I
I
' ..k^t r.a o.r,c aoer th
and what he says after thccrime rnay indicate
the
stirtc.oithe
e the statc'ot ml
mind in which I

does, behaves I I
l-
may
the accused. In sonlb cases silence 't
that.person was. lt muy'.be iousei to implicate .:
or
where 1 person'is accused of giving false statements
anrount to subsequerrt conduct. E.g,

absconding from the jurisdiction, to H.nry

Kifamunte V Ugaqda, S'C'Ctim {Pbeal' the
robbery and'murder and the pibse-cution''s'
app.ttunt t,oa u".n convicted of aggravaled
ci of the appcllant. It rvas stated. that aftcr'thc.offenc;s

Seeing the- police ran away but was.-oleJTul

by.lt
had been committed, the appellaqt after
at the subseqtrcni conduct b1 the ,
I
the' t
..rw'ay s6owcql. the guiity nrind of the appellant, i'e' having.cor'nmitted
app6llant of running i
. this was confrihre<l'jby thc .l
offenccs. Thc appcllant waS convicred.by the l-ligh.Court and
jtiqgeinents '
: Cburt of Appcat an,l ficncc tliu appeal
io Supreme court which reveiscd' the'
:t
by the bppcllant tlrat.hc
ourt of afpcal. This was because 6[ the explanation
. nob could not ltave him cnln9c tl cx1]lin
ran lor fcar ot lris li[e, rirat tlle qngry 1
-eivcrr
trial judgel noted during the- proceedings
t the ieained
anythingandseccndly,thefactthattheteame<ltnalJuoge^r-IotsuuutrrrSl
run, for his life' tircre was
;;., ;;.;u, n oor,*iiity thai any inrlocent'person could havc
the accused,'he'irce the appeal
and should haie been resolved in favour of

I s\lccecde (l
_t

walcttlrS.ti with mutdcr

il tlorvcvcr, i* Ugnniln Vs Slmon Oncn (t991) IICB ?' thc acctrsctl
,l:.: by the victim ol him'
iie claiured t0 have been rvoken up by the beatings aciministered
and
nrcters from his.house ancl it ha.
cuts anci cvidcncc
: Trrc crccenscc's t-.otiy r,ias r'orrnd a fcw
The accused
dragged througir the accussed's ccmpound.
that the dcceased,s body had been
crld rvfien hc re-appcarcd, cxplaining that
[e had beqn afraid that
<lisappcarcd lor 2 nronths
I
r. !I
rvas herd that the conduct of running
away was not that of
the rocal mititia would kiit hi::n, it

an innoccnt nran.
' Irt ugartda vs Kaba'dize (l9tl2) IICB
and calicd Eaclt other bad rvorrls
'words
de'ceased and.then rall to a swan.lp ncar by
tlre swalnp"court hctd' that tlte cottduct
wurds rvas that ola guilry mind.
93; tlic acc*scd and thc ilcccasccr cxcrrrr.ge<l harsh
ancl nearly fought, A short spcar and
stabbed the
fronr whers hc was arrcstc<l whilc rvalking
around
oI tlrc accuscd of running away immediatcly after
;

4' providds lor explanatory'1nd

lrrtroductory fncts
-s'8 to bc 1)art.of rcs gcstnc.and it
inttoduces the follorving ilcmcnts as
being rclcvant.
- facts which introduce I explain.ihe fact in irr,,..
-facts wlrictr sippo,r / rcbur a' i'fcrcricc suggcstcd by factin issue.
'person
- rlcts whiclr
iae,itirv or: estabrish trie whose identity is
relevant. 'r;;;;;;;;;r;;
-facts,which srrow thi tinrc,and pracc at
which any fag in issue happcncd.
- facts which qhorv thc rclution of partics.

are, lacti rvhich haye an elcnrenr

lltssg of showing hoiy.a particulat fabr was biouglit
4bout. i,"$:
Explaiiririg:!ra! atnOunt ro preparation e.g. undqr;t!ie,
larv of baiiknrptcy; abscorllfu,* norn
. ''
juris<liction or kccpi0g t,orr. nray
cxptain rhe fact'of ari act.rr;il;;;. rn.oi.,
of breacti ,. ,

oFcontlact a lcttcr rvrittcn expressing dissatisfaction

witli.the goocts',.,rr, o.."rn ;r;r;;;;:;
for [ermirtation' tn Uganda vs Kasya George, the
accused was irrdic[ed for murder. The
accused lrad bBen seen in thb company.
o[ the deceased, evidence was adduced that the
deceased's b.ody tvas found half'a rnetre awry
from ihe, accussedls place residence and had .

.raped, 5 days later graduated tai tickets,bearing the accussed,s nanre were
bee4 'first
allegedty found sorne.oierers lrom wherq rhe
deceaselds uoJy ;.r. ;;";r.;;;.;., ;
the tickets rvere taken from him on.rne fateful
day o[arrest. There were great il;;;;;;;
in tlle prosecution's evidencc .:spccialty ro whero rh.
b"d;;;;;;;;. tickers. court
held that it is tritc law that rhc accused pcrson
wh.o put.s forward t5c clcfc^cc ol alibi docs :
tlot itssulllc irrty btrrtlcrr ol'1:rool. lt rcsts on tlrc prosecution '

'l'lrat tlic cvitl''ititr:

to clisalll)rovc it or tlcstroy it.
ilgairtst tltc accuscrl rvas'1lt,rcly circunrstaltial,
arrcl tlid *ot ir.rcsistibly
'poini ttl tlic 1[iilt ol'titc :tccttsctl. -l'lr:rr itlcrc rvcrc
othcr cti-cxislinli circrr*rsr:*:c(:s rv6iclr
*'ouki*'cirkcrr / rlcstr,y thc irrlc.crrcc tt tirccs t. tlispr.ovc
alitri.

' Fa.ct.s rvrricrr sullgrort or rcrrut :rn ipfcr.clcc

""v' v'r!v ,.\.
-
,;...;.-^..tbt
\ --.-i
.-)"
 a

'rssue t'vliictr contradicts /sirppo(s such a

A fact irr nray lrave cetlritr prcsunrptiotrs, lacts
a bank aftcr rvorkirrg hottrs And thc only
conC6Sio* is relcvrurt c.g ii'ntoncy.is stolcn fioru
lll;tllllLlcr
PCl:\()rl rvlr(, lr:rrl tlrc
kc.l io lhc llurrk (v:rs lhc rrl.Julr1.r.rr. tlrc lirst inlircrtcu is tlrirt'tlrc
tttiutagcr hacl had thc kc;:;.or stolcrt.
c.nrnrittc(l.t1c tilt,:1cc. lliV il'cvitlcncc is laid that thc
in that cottutry: tl"osc facts
tto*r 5i*r or wils itwlty itt arrotltcr cotttttry lrrid ltarl the kcys
contril(lict tlrc cortcltrsiort artd itrc rclcvitttt. ln lt Vs llall (l9ll) AC'[7' rvltcrc tltcrc rvas a

and hctd tirat ihc evidcncc

co.victio. of.having a* i*ccstuous rcrationship court wcn[ahcad
'about lcaving togethcr in 6nc bcd roomcd house as weil as having a baby ya.s relcvant
:

association of brother and sister'

because it.rebuttcd the evidence Of inflocent

S.8 and l0 are retated becausd St0 deals with

fas which are inconsistqnt with a fait in issue
to civit'and criminar pr.ceedings and to'the'
and.rnakes them relevant- Both seciionS apply

accuscd as rvell as dcfcnce.

,. ldentitY/tdentiticati?n ..:
., anything .

Iricntiircation of or
Any fnct rvtrich.shorvs thc iclcntity of anytrririg is rcrcvant.
rrcr''t'rr"6or p6isOn j'.resembles anothei thipg or'
sc
- sion of .op.inion tirat thai.thing
pefson lS illf CXnfeS:
likely rtrat.'is likcly.to be ths sanre;thing or person. Identi[rcation
i.s the qanrenesl:,
much so
A...
ideqtification ofr]ie accuscd must be iqr.ciat'
t
and thcrefore wherc ihe crinre is'committcd,
thls is
I
suspect must bc pi,oduced:and shorvn to
be the one who comrnitted the offenle and
may bc pbsitive oi ncgative but
I
I
..hi.rubi. ttrrough identification. The resurt of identitrbation ':
)I it gencrally entails the following; .

...1.^peisoriitlentifyirrgnlust.lravcs|eri/.observ0<Jthcaccuscd.
Settled impression in his mind'
2. The identifying pcrson musl ltave had.a
.l.T'crnc*tirr l,cirrrcoftlicpirson'.lsiltthcritlrcofirlcntilrciltiott.tnttsl-1-r.tltcsrrlircasrvhcn
irbt.be r.ainled.b,v other facts or opinio:r o[
third
the person sa.w rhe.accused and it mrrst
partics..
is iniportant, i[ it's short illay be .l'br only a few
4. Time takcn iu identityinS tlte accusc<l

sccorrtls. it rttlY tlot bc ilcct!ratc'

itlcn tillcrr Iio n

ltllorrtruitv :rffortliltH t)ropcr
O
courd be linre' distance,
are the circurrlstanccs or conditions of a particurar case e,g it
Thesc
rr*l trrc pcrson iacntirrecr, or it r.ay bc t'c *rcrrtal statc of
nig't or.iry
bctrvecn t'c icrcrrtirrcr
involvcs pointing otrt thc charactcristics
oI the thing
thc pcrson idcntitying. ldentilication
 :
I
.

i
t
t
I
idcntifrcd c.g. thi tnatulcr of drcss, scx, agc, sizc, and hcight but it could also bc srncll. lt i
I

may also extend to non physical things like hand writing ctc. ;
I
i
I
t
Ca;c lary on idcntitiontion .
!

Uganda Vs Kadidi
-lclentiflication, - diffcrcnt conclitions. - corrcct iclcntit-rcation ol thc irccuscd .Ditl'crcnt
'cgnditions depend on lcngth of time accuscd rvas under observatiorr, distancc.
I
I
' ,. Fttt ls t
I

Accused rvas indicted for murder. Thc prosecution evidence rvas.that rvhile the deceased rvas i

in thc horuc of prvl,lhc.accusccl cartrc and askcd [or pwl; to opbn tof hinr. bctorc cntcring I

- the housc, [he'acqused first extinguishcd the light from the tadoba.'Noneof the people inside
the houie knew the accttsed except thc dcceased. Hc enterid thc h<ime white holding a gourd

of tonto; a stick'o1 which there were nails and a khife and was wrapping'himielf withil a

blankbu While ihiide he i;at near to the deceasecl. After pw2 wifc to pwl, had lit the tadoba, .
:
the deceascd intfoduced tlte accused as the intrudcr. He placed the knifc on the tloor and told
:

the.m that if hc had wanted to kill them there was nothing to stop him. He eventually
':t.1'
thrcatsncd t9 bc3t the dccc{scd, pwl told.hinr'to go as lrc wab disturbing thcir paci. Attcf - 1!.
".i.i:
,r-. l

beirig helped. to stand qp by pwl,as he appeare.d to. have,bee.q'.drunk, the accused asfed foi

hii items ahd wlpen thi dcccatcd was handing thcm over to hirn, thc aicused stabbcd thc

dcccased with.his
\nift on thc chest after which hc rar-r awal,:.Thc:deceased'died insttntly,
An alani'r was raised and upon report to police'the acbuscd'whs arrested by pw3 who kne'w
thc aciused, .

.Court trcftt tlrai in the insl.ant.case, thc prosecuti<in case hcavily depended on identiltcatign
of the accused..The alleged idcntifrcation of the intruder the deceased w.as unCer diflrcult
conditions wllich werc not free from possibility of.'enor as to thc idcntity of the intruder

. becaule it vras made under fleeting light of the tadoba. tt is unknown as to horv long the
intruder was under observation by thc deceased and iherc was no evidenbe that the decbased

was familiar with the intnrder so as to rule out possibility of enor. As there was no evidence

that thc accuscd s,as truly itlcrrtiftcd. prosccution had failcd to provc it's casc against thc

accusccl bcyonil. rclsonatllc doubt Tlrnt allhough thcrc was tro post mortcru rcport it is trite

lau,tlut dr:atlt an hc provctl rvillrotrt nrcdical cviclcncc.

ln linrnriurucl Nsutrt.gir Vs l.iga:rtla (1992-3) IlCl] 21, l-lcld that il'a conviction is to bc

based on evidencc of a singlc i<ientitying a witness, such evidettcc lnust be tested for
trutl;,tirlucss antl any possibility ttI crt''lr cxcltrdctl.
 ir

ln Ug..rurlr vs l(atlittt (1992-3) HCI] 59, thc accusccl rvas rlot.prtrpcrly irlcnti{i6clllccausc ltc
('0trr.t [[ultl tir;rt. thc
lurrl tl,:crr cslirrr,.1risirctl :rrrtl n() orlc krrur,; lrirrr liplrrl lirrrrr tirr: tlcccusct!-

prosccuiiuil clsc tlcpcndcd or.r itJcntilicatiorr ol'thc ircclrscd arrd tiie aitegcd it-tcntittcaLioil by

,thc dcccnsctl

ln ugrnda vs Bosco okello (1992-93) rlCB 68, Court held as follows; i

I.lc1l l. 'g6t
thc
identificatioh by a singlc witncss can sustain n .o,lvjction iprovidcd
:
occiuions rflet and
conditions rverc conclusivc. ln this case, though the witness on previotts
was fire from the
greete.d thc'accused.when hc visired his deceasgd mothei and though therc
minules, the
cooking placc, a tadoba'and a glass'torch, in an operation which lasted about 30
witness was fult otfear a,{conditidns were unsuitable for ptoper identification' I
a[fects the withessrs
Held 2. That failure to name ones assailant at the first.indtance seriously
against
crcdibility. In abseucc of corrcct idcntifieation, murdcr cJraigcs hadn'1been ryoved
the accuSed:.

InAbdalliBin.WendoVi.R(1953)20EACAt66,tn6appellarrtswerecorrvicted.of.
on ontl idcntifying:
niurderirrg alnight.rv'.rtclinran'in a vcry clark night and convictcd 113
fact may be prgved hy tlp
witness. Cqirri'tleld tlrat'thougli subject to c.rtoin eicqption.s the
;a...

tOsting *ith:greatestcarethe
testirhony of a singlc,W'ilness. This docsn't lessen thC need for

cvidcncc of sdeh ti rvitncss cqpecially in idcntiircation wlien it's

knowri that thc conditiorts
cases; other eviience whether
favouring conebt rdentihcation. are diffr'cult. That in s[ch
I

I direct or ci'rculirstantial pointing to.thc guitt is needcd'

vs ugantln (lggg-g0) ticB, ong of thc issucs rvas rvhq'thcr coutt can
l:urthcr. irr fvlunrbu
I

convict oir onc identifyirig rvitness, Odoki J hcld ttrat there

is'no particular'number of'
(r. rvitucsscs tly lnrv rCtltrircd to1)r6vc a lirct sotrglrt to bc
provctl, cottrt cttr 'thcfcforc convict oqr
It
U need for
the evidence of a single identifying witness provided it warns itself on the special
i'l cautioh anC strch cvidcnce is corroboratcd.

t
! In Ug;rrrtl:r \ls [r{oscs l(a.sultit, onc o[ tlic isStrcs was rvhcthcr cvidcrtcc O[ a Singlc
i to rvcll L,,otu,, cr'ccptions, as
iduntifyi*g rvit;ress can bc adrr:issibic. Court lreld tha.t subject
I
ir is tritc larv tlult u lircr c:ui bc llrcvctl by a siirglc rvitucss;
tilat thcrc is ircccl lbr tcsting thc
rvhcrc contlitiorls
cviclerrcc t:In srnqlc rvitncss rtlcntificatiou rvith ihc Brcatcst carc. csPociirlly
 - that'it's riconr,ncntlcd to look
lor soutc
for:. fornring corrcct idcntiticatiolr
tiud tllat'tt
rlitticult titld
ilrc ditticttlt I
possibility of
evide*ce, which proves thb guilt be it circunrsrantial or direct.to exclude
othbr

crror I
rvon*ru' Thc
in Jotr* nobcil eitiru vs uga*da, tlrc appctiant
was co.nvictcrr of nrurtlcr oI ir I
gn dying declaration of the decease.d.(speared'woman)'wh.at
convicrion rvas based gntirery

,;; *i.}t-,i, r.,.ni,t lr.v r wi[ur:sscs ('dsbu.cl antl.3 vilhgcrg. Tltc r:xttct ivords o[ ttre I
ousia; tfe
trial. The kilting was said to havq taken ntacl
deceased werq nor elicirctJ oi ,1.,.
slic
dcccnscd,s 5ousc,.rt irbout
g:00 wtsclcrrtlitt if thc-rvitncsscs ivcro tr[tht'ul'
pnr. But it
:
namqtl the appqtl.ant is her killef. Thc isSue on appea! were i{entifrcation ?n'd'aamisiiuititY
- . :- pr<isbcutiol
claini'ctl was admissiblcundci
ttrc E'''
of a.confcsrion ro a police.offiqqf which the
r
:
.thlrt the.'debbased ha{ begn Seluinety'
Acr, Court helct inter. alia that tfrc possiUility
of her drsaiiant coutd npt bi .*1i,,.oco.,tn9 t:n* of tnc killing w1s
,i-.ncn ai tl.,c idenlity
favourabte'
.. 8:00pm ona it. conditions fo, iA.ntif,cation co,itl'hot.have bccn.very
1bo,t little corroboration'of
. Conoboration.ot a dying declaration was neces:"ry-' Tk:.g lut.':t'
h9r.dyingtlcclrrutionarrtltltcrcrya!uosuggcstionoflnyni91ivc: ';i.r., ' :

258, Coutt tll-'rnU t'tl: *nln^'?

rn sia'israsi Vo r(irarnba ir,ci)
lt*l simitarity ol !!a I"
t
'TLR
onll'"',lt
bf identlty is inVolved th9r1ftr ttot,
.:.:'.|slnlsiuebut.a|sotheirpioximi|yinpointollirng:,
:qfiestion
-t collaterit faits as Io lhe'f aq ',' .'
: :. simif,t"|':::d
admiftBd ryg.ptwhpre tle
and hotd.thal evidqnce sheu id.not'be
' cf the,2 ,i"ft. o( lctg ig rucfr lhat it r's unrelsgt in
- ':::::]il,;,",, ;;;;,;; .,,",s.a, was rhe person who was concerned
lt

t
'Timcarrtlplacearereldvaotfactsarrdpartofrcsgestae'.:'
'tted nray not bc matcriai' In sonid
was conlm':t:^:'::..::;",:,.':
(- Ordinarily, the timc at rvhich aparticularcrimc . r
trrc offcncu c'g ol'fcnccs ot
\ in-cstabiishing trrc clcnrcnt.of
cascs horvcvcr, tinrs-ls irnportant of
got t.c sa*rc clcnrcnts but arc diftcrc*tiitl'ccl lry ti're
i.rousc brcakiug and burgrary
'avc
day rvhen the offence was conrmittcd-'

llccttttsc' i* sttclt'
*rig'i irls,r bc irriporta*tr*rrcrc t*c:rccus,;rr ,uts rr, a rrcrcncc'i'Alrbi'
1-rirrc
irr'rl ttl ilttt
*ihcrr trrc.o[ttricc rvas ct''ru*itrctl
.
c.us,:s.r:r,icrcrrcc rvi* rlc rccl*irctlto sritlrv t'c iir.c

tlrc accusr:cl at thc sccllc at

titirt pilrtlctt litr tti'-'c'
lr
 .lltI:rrirjrrstri1lsrrl.1l:rrtics-l.lrcts
I r\\r.rrrlrll-rrrrlr-: rrr lr.ir rlt.r r.r\r
:
'l'ltis irre lutics irttrtrtl rr:l:rtitrrrships, li'icntlly. lovc. .itirlicirrrv rcl:ttiorrs pcrstrrriii iututit:tts.
..i
Tlrus'i-n Nlaliintti Ys.licllrrblic ( l96l) 27, ihc tpllclkint rvas convictcd oI nrlrr .slaughtcr of a.
. ., i
!nrirll boy. ol'whorr: lrc rvus loto parcntis (stancling in thc posiiion as parr:rl[bfEcating hinr'

ito <Jcath. 'lhc rfpcllant clainlcd thar thc dcattr was causcd by cpilcpsy aad ttr,L the boy had
knockcd himsclI against.a lidrd objcct whiclr. lcd to the bleeding and death. Tlie-prosecution
" i
ad.duced.cvidcnce.of prcVious bcatings in order to rebut his defencc. Court hcld that itWas.

admissiblc undcr S.8 of EA in explartation and substantiation of the cars-e of death and also
i
'the
tb show. mbtive in appellant tbr. revenge aga,inst the tleceased ds well as his.ilt- rvill
towar.ds,thedeceased.'..
-i r

5. Cornrnbn intintio.rr as part of res gcstae S.9 r

I This is lirovidcd to under s,9 i.nd niostly relatcs io conspiracy where 2 or.nlor,J pcople ,g*"
-t i
to comnrit.a.crinrc.'it bscorees a crime at tlie point of agreerhgrlt. According+e+gwhcre'2 or.'
'commit s
nrorc pcrsons havc conspircd togcthcr to an. offcncc. QI an actiohable wtctl8r t
: ;,.1
'.anything
. Said;dgne or,rvriiteit.by-any,gne of thoSe pebple in reference+e-{rei*aomrngn r-
'"
-. 't'
.inlentiori is.iclcv:urt'fiict as against.cach,of thcnr as'wcit a1 for thc purposcs of proving ltlg
-.''' .

exisiance of the conspirdey and bf shqwing that any suckpgrsonwai phrty to ttie ioirspi.iacy..
-
.
t'

Evidence:led unrlcr r.g *urtshow thlt tlicre ru.as1conspiracyar.r.cl th?rt a pa(icqlac pbrson,

{ ..was.a party to tliat conspiracy..ln,$ v.i..Blake antl ahothei itS tn 49, a custolns offieer'.,
' and an agent werc aciuscO of conspirin!1 to pass goqds thrqugh'a .port of eirtry w-ithout
payrncnr ol t'tl.l duiy. tn ordcr tom carry ou1 that Conspiracy,.one of thenr rnade faise. entries

. in tfie book and therc rVas evidcnCe to show that tlicy had carried out this uinrb by putting a

tirlsc l'crjol'(l irr tltc buok- Orrc ol'thc issur:s rvus rvltclltcr thc l'.rlsc cviticncc nrltlc by onc o[
!--.
. .

tirc accused could be used to accusc thc ot!,,ers. Heltl that in so. lar as they ha( alrcady
'.ngrectl, rviriltcvcr rvus tlonc lly orte of thcnr ln lurilrcrancc of thc cbnspiracy cotild be uscd as
Ir
(-,
evidence against the otlrcrs. I

( Vs t'laulagc l.tel ( 1944) tf d Ss t

L l1 ilVsN,lcrlouclt (t966) IQll 233,thiswasircirscoIconspiracyof acoril]IIIrJ,Ihe director

rvas the trccused in cl',urge o[ thc cornpany. The issue was whether evidencc disclosed..
'
colsililircy.. licltl ttiut. srrrcc this irrdivittuli tlrc'solc rcsporisiLiility Ibr botlt cornllanics. hrrd

consllirncy rcquirctl nrolc' thait orlc l-\crsori, thcrc couitl bc no conspiracy in the circumstanccs
.d
 ,,
I
it
and co.ul<l'not conspirc atonu,

I
6. Contratlictoi'i / inconsistqnt facis, S.10.
n
Un<ier S,t0 [acts which.ars inccnsisteht / yhich Contradict fabtS in issue are relevant..It tj
introducqs a ncgativc eisment in that any fact which ncgatcs'of atlects thc probubility o[any
t-
fact in issue ii relevant, 'I I

The sqction provides'tltat lacts not otherwise relevanh aie relevaqrt if; ' .

.a)iftlrcyitrr:incotrsistcrrtwiilrlrtyfuctirtissuc./rclcvtrirtfact.,
1,
b) .Uy thEmsslyes. in conqeition with other facts they qqkb ihe.eiistunce / non eryStancb of U
if
: :' '
any fact in iisuc liigtrly probabic- / inrprobibLo . ' .
'

. Evidcncc <if ihc.orriist'cnt laet fi\cts can bC dcrivcd from a numbdr of.fnctors sircir a,s physical.
'
incorrsistency-, r,;ith the facts, with nattre 6f.somqthtng as tell. as't'itn'defences such as alibi
rvhioh by the!r'nqture'shorv thit.a persbn was not phygically pfeieut iit ihe sccrlc of the crimc.

, ln Ugirrdn YI l(yotrrvclrJc (1988-90) ttCtI 49, tlr.i ugcuscd,wcrc iittlictctl tbr niurrlcr'antl it'"'l*.
*:
. wds alteged ihA1 ,t .1'Uro\e into {ic h9ys9 of the dbceasgd; ti9.d him'qp. and told-him tb run ;::i: '
I

. outsldc and ihot.ll!n1. Thcy gpent abgut 30 minutes, [l ihq'house qntl thcy werc uqir.rg brigtrt .

r:1 folches. The oic0irants of in

'oAl.iining '
rogp'weta.,to lec,thgrn ituiirig ttrc tjine, but theyl '
t
.:
i pieaded thc dcfence of ali!i. Hcld tlrat. thc alibi had bepn dispioved and destroyed when the
t pro5""rtion witncss.placcd thc J,ccused at the scene:of ihe crime.'

^
ln Rryam"t.rg Y.l Ugnrrtla (1988-90) HCI].70,. t['e issue.'waS whether evidence o[ t
I
t- discrepancicg: in thi evidencu of- prosecution, a g$dqc betwecrr thc appcilant and the
t..

complainaht and tlic defcnce of'alibi by ttre appeilint {vhtch *.i.i'inconsistcnt with the fact iI
I
t' ,L
.in iSue wr, ,.i.*nr (!9 a c.harge of robbery).iCourt lietd that the discrcpancics inlhs
evidenceo[lhe proiecution pointed to deliberatc falSehood and should have been resolved'iri It-
[:
, ftrvour o[ thc. appcllant. That an.accuscd pcrson whO .scts up'arl riilri ,,s tlcfcrrsc tlocs'trOt
t
assunlc thc burtlcrt ttl provc it. It is thc llroscctrtiorl to disapprovc it.

i* [.g:r1tl:r ys S:rlrrrrri l)r:srrr:rrr (lil{l) ll('ll l'. thc issttc tv:ts rvltttltci' cIitlcncc tlI
liltrr:)iiSici:L:11..\ ilr ut'iiil.i :,,u (rl llIli:,ifull0n.\vils:'Clcvltltt. (J()trrt hcltl ilurt sttcft uvitlcllcc ils.
r*:ri.ilc !-li\.cn t)., irccu\r(i .r:rti ir'. irr.. ..r rtrr,::r irtrrsl hu cttttsitfcrcd tt,1:t:thci'ri'rth orltcr cvitlctlcr:'

ai il *.ltolc. lt Itas tlccrr liutl riorvrr !lurl trrily Br itvc lllcotlslsl'cllulc:i I I r:trt cxi:litit"ctl
 'satisl:ictorily. rvi!l usually rcsult in'tlrc cvi<lcricc ot'tlrc rvilricss tlcinrl rcicctctl, Thirt mirror'

inconsistelcics ryol;i gsually iravd an.eflfccl unlcss thcy poirrt to dclibcrate '.rntrutirfuiness-
'flurt tScsc rtrlcs 1pIl',u tq irrcorrsistcncir:s rvlricir \\'itrrcsscs lor thc ticlcrtcc irrst'lrs tircy lpllly

.
ti; rvitrtcssc-s ttl'itrtl.scctrrioir.
r

't
11 Ugurrtlu \/s.Alltl'.rlhr Nrssur (1982) ltCl] l,'.tltc issuc was intcr lliir s'iictlrcr facts ci.
-t

gravc illcotlsister:cy iir cvidcncc arc rclcwntt to fact in issuc. Cou.rt hcld ttiat in assessing the.
.:
evidence o[ a rvitncss ',uld rcliirnce to bc placcd on it, his consistcnc]' or irrconsisicncy is

rclevant considqration. Wlrerc gravc inconsistcncy occurs, thc evidcnce nlay be rejccted
''r't
unleis satjslactorily cxplained rVhilc nrinoq inconsistencies may have no adYerse effect on

th.e te.stimbny unless it points to..deliberate untruthfulnesg . The inconsisttlnc.les of the keY
witnesses did. no.t pbint to delibeqle untruthfulness.

'Other the offence'of rape,

facts includel Fact 9f inpotlng", would'be ro ally inconsistent. .with
j :
.ri .i' .'
,_
defilement or allied o[fences. :r
t
d
l.
i

-Under S,l I oI tiic.EA, in.suits in'wliich damagcs are claimer!, a.1Y fact rvili enable
I
I
.*h|h
rhi courl'ro lcrurnring tti.'n,',lo,u,t.0f tlirnrirgcs vrlri.ih ougl',l Uc'owurdcii i! i.l.unnt .drl
I

1o
irrstaricc ths conduct'gl th! dcfendant nray lcad. rd;an aw.4rd 9f pggra.vated or'excnrplary
dampge5 or punitive'ddnragcs or general damages oi nominat damages; If the conduct of the
".:
".': higlrhurrclcdnr:ss, puhitivc demagcs may bc arvardcd. Likcwisc, in caics
dcfend.apt cniaiic,l
of
LJ negligcnce, rvhere the piaintiff ilso contiibut.a to th. accidenrinlwhich he/she suffereil loss
.6r dnrnage, tlJcn (his wiil be taken ioto accounl in dcterntining thc quantum of damages to bc
n
lr
awarded.

Statc Ot Mind/ Bodi

A person nray co'$mit a particular.act/ crime because of the state of his ln many cases,
llodt
to proio a crimc' Statc of
the mental elqnrcnt.in a cls:.is intportant ah.d has provcC in brdcf .

deflrnite consequencqs,
nrind can includei Sanity, Knorvledge that particular activities have
'.

of rvhich state of rnind

Good or bad faith and Recklessness.or negligence. The evidence

infened is frequently relevant. A stateof mind rnust be shown to exist in reference to.
statc of.things o-r- activiticsi set oIcircurnstances. Tliis eviclcncc is aCnrlssiblc
unicr
particular

S.f 3. Ttris sectio:r nrakes rclc.rant things that are 5rh,vsicaliV felt
by a pcrscn'

Srnity
 be i*rportirlt itt gttcct:Iriio0 qil5r:r;
lrer:ilrr;c tlrc s;rnity q,t a
" .Tn-:' tcstrrtor nrry b. .rtt.,t intn
qucstl0l) attd ritay bc trscrl ttt tlr'tll*tt11r: l'!
lrir; rvill ,*rl i,, *ra,y crirrri,Al
cascs, sanity is relevant
to prove guiit as rvr'lI as cstfltrlir;lr tj
rvtrctlrcr il
l)crson is fit tn st;rntl trial.

I
. .l(rrorvlctlgc
.,:nl cascs wcrc u,.,";;.i*;',il-*.n,rt
]1,.^:'r'"
Person"e'g' in' of
l,] lr:T
liability
ro derer,rri.n.
ih. riabiiity or a, I
9ases for diingcrous aniniatp, if the ownerknows that
th'u,,in.,al'
lrasa prtlpcrrsity to bitc cvc'.rrrougtr ii is ,.or.naturauy <rariger.us,ro*.rii';;;;:;;';;
liable if rhat animal bites sornconc. !
I trtcrrtlon
ancl can hctp sho-w
lhat at lhe rime orlcttlal conrmission orthiorrence,
:1::i1T.i4-o.,.."t
thgr: w1s intcqsiorr..or. a nrotivc to'commit rlre offcncc:-rhis
.in o" dgrivcd fro,r.r coirduct or
words, thrcatcrling actions..
!r

Good faittr / niO faitfr

It'is important in cases were nralice/
fraud are alleged. [n such cases thc evidenqc
of good t,.i
faitiro1!on1n49 or nrata_fidcs is retcvan,.
,,,iuri:;*;,;";;;;;;.;r, the accuied lr
'r;ro r'.
use or irirnj'lrl with'igtcnq to ;ut,agrin.t;;;;;;;:*
-t

l
Iu.:,rn'l*ed-.with
avlfr.r wqs.red thar thc accuscd had pcrronnJ
evrdbnce wai held to be admlssibie
!i*itor..r;;; il-;;;;ril.;; !
because il strotg.,iniention oiiri" accus.a. .)t

a:
7.EvidenceofSinrilar.Facts/.0ccurancesS.tl
Und'e5 s'14'. tut1.lq91'which estabiiqhes that.a particular.
act. was accidenral or not:is
a'drttissible' tt is proyidcd thar r{rlieri
there is a qucstion of. whct6er ah.aot
was aciidentil or
t'. i.tentional.or was done with a pirticutar
knowledge/ intention, thc faet,no,
rr.1. ,;;.*;
o[sinritar occurancc in cach of rvirich
the pcrson <!oi'g thc rct rvas.concemcd
l"t.otserics

Evidencc oI sirrrilar'fitcts gcncr:rl!y rcfcr to thc rulc tlurt cour.ts c,*l usc
1:usr sii'ilrr1
occuranccs rclarirrg to it pirrtictrlar pcrsori
to cstablish rvhcthcr that.pcrson is guilty
or iiable
or not

1liq rtr!c is 1l:'cnrisid ort thc assuntption tlrat

;rco;:lc rlo not charrgc thcir habits a*d ir ,n"y.
- hirvc d..c ccrtui* thrrgs i* thc
llirst, thcy arc likcry to rcr)cut thc.r.
F

cvidencc qf
l'lic gcpcral rrilc uirtlcr tiiis hcacling is cxclusionary. It rvrll normally cxcltrcle .-

lii ntiIlr. Iilcts btrt rccogi)lsc cxccl)tl Q lr-c

\Yalcs (1894)
[.hc tscnciiri ruic rvt,s luitl ilorvir iu tlrc cit..:c ol'illal<in Vs A.C'ot Nov Sotrtlr
!.'
n C 57 rvlicrc thc court statcd rhat.''It is uudoubtcdly compcicnt for the proseetr+ien to
adduce

cvidcncc ro s6orv ihat thc accuscd.has bccn guilty of crim.inal acts othcr than thosc govercd

by rhe indictmcnt for lhc purpbse of rcoJing to.the conctpion *1 ,1.: it a person
1.9y:q9
his ctiininaf condtici to hlvc com.mitted the.offence forwlirth he,is being tried.''
liklly !r9m
Tlrc court wcnt on to ,..ognirc cxceptiorts under which such evidencc will be admitted
such

as;
'
,[..Where fhat evidence is tobe used.to rebut defence of accident or'mistake'.

2.Whereitisusedtoshow.thatwhathappenedwasbydeiign.
*T" to iook as if
ln R v Smith, the appellant. was indicted for murder of a mistress, it was
were
r5e lady lad dicd of epileptic disease but it was not. ttcld that those past simitar acts
adrnittecl as evidehce to show that it was not an accident. . -
-<.+-.-..

IrtMoot!Music;PublishingC.to.vsDewoole(1970)IALLER.463,tl@4c['o.1f9r
1
alleging that thc;clcrcnoanl
I copyright inrtingcmcnr by tt',c plainriff aguinst thc dcfendant fa-
defenilant admitted the simi-larity
copiei and pulilishe.d.thc piaintiff s music a$ his own..Tlre
.
\ oF the 2 rvorks that:i1 {11 Uy foiryldence. !,viilence wal
l;d to show tfia1 t19
lrt qatd,.

ilcfcnclairt, on pr.iious'qciiqions lrad ptiblished works similar to othcr pcoplc and:was

\i rherofore with the habit oll.opying ihe:works ol otlier pggple. Ihc dc.fcndant cliallc'ngcd the
could be admittcd as
tt cvirlcncc. c.cjurt ircl&that such past infringerneni
!l but
om shiw ihat this particular infringement could not be a coincidence
'

wils rflther rcvcaliug thrit.thc dcfcndant rvas lraudulcnt.

an unclean
In [tales Vs l(ert (1908) KD 601, A barber allowed a perlon io be sha'7ed "'riih
ihat tlrc
on got ring wprnts ancl sucC tlrc barbcr. Evidcncc rvas lct! to shorv
I} people had had earlier on suffered tiorn ring worms as a result of sliaving them with un ciean

.razors. llcltl that such cviclcncc w?.s adrnissiblc and went to estabiish thc dangcrous'practicc
carr also be used to shorv ca'usation
by the barber. Evidence oI previous / similar Occ,trances

i.e . horv ccrirril tlrings rvcrc'urougltt et:otrt.

(rcad R Vs Makincli, I-ltr:'is Vs Di'I'] (1952) AC

6g4 ( Makin \rs AG NSW approvcci). R

Vs Ellis (190r) IWLR 1064

I
a

ADMTSSTONS r\N0 C0NFIiSSIONS

 I

AUrn',ss,tcrrrlS huro M{*Js. tlg+ ;.

t.
hinr trnless
In crinrinal cascs, no statcnrcnts rnadc by tlrc. accusqd pcrson is adrlissiblc agtirtst
prosccution that it.is-a voluntary stqlcrncnt i.e. it has not been obtained opt n
'.it is shbwn by the
u
ol.lcar/ prbjudicc or oui of hopc ovcr an a<lvanlagc.hcl<l out !y r pcrson..Adnrissions.'.arc
,.provided for bewedn S.l5-2-2 of theEA andrthesc
afply'in civit'cases, .
n
li

.V.oiuntary coirfegsions aie'therefore admissibJe in evideric: 4g1iqs: the maker..fcwever, !I

wlrcl i confcssion rtray.bc r'cjcctc.d, tlris is bccl0fg confll!0n1.!nnt

. !h9rc arcinsruuccs T()
pur rhe nrakcr in.':i danger of incriminating himself faisely. The positiori of a
involuntary
'pcrson who is undcr irni-st is'pciuliui bccausc that person is vulricrdble.hs a risult. statqmcnts
t.
:'confessionslcall a geparate treatinent ulder the law.,ln Uganda the
.fgr li
u
subsuntiVe'law iS betw'een S. t 6-29 df' E.A.

coNEESSToI\ii
it gencrally.rqfeil to / m'eans a slateme0t by the'
: ft.. term [s noi.derrned bj, ou., UEA but
i'
'
accubed"person acknowlidging guilt'for an'alleged c(ime'This definition is derivedfromthe
.....1
I
case of swarni vs King Errrpgror (1939) [ ALI,ER 397; W\9i1 Lor.d Atkin' stqt:d lhat a
coirfesdipn ri.,ust.admit in tpi-rni.sither the fact *!.i.l,.consti1tliglthe
offenbe-'Lbrd Atkin
I ifie inGrenie th'at he
' Ir
,t futthci statcd u
:
.

-cirmmined a csrmc.' This is f9rtir19{ in Ugl1dq V; Yolafn! (19 s8:92) HCBi.

,'1I
""' ':
:,'4aiiwherc
1i : itical gin with the'
.c.
t_j tiie iccuBcd was,indict0d for r.rlgrd-crt H,9 rad t|cgir
'Jrinking
t
the accused wa$'
deciased anri on thcir.way hbme, thc decea$.d l rt.a. f9r, the waragi that
:ii
tJ
'.*lnl l*o.l;1.::'::::^.::i':
trini'using a kniflc'and-6nc lire;k' latei, th-
pOckct c man died o*hp.
I '.
. a'ccuScd thcn
stabbcd

wou*d. The accused made an exrra-judiciaV c6nfessibn by a'mhgistrite.

:
Court Held that a
a'
I
t-

confessiott co,t tto.tes utt rutequ'vo cal altttissioit. of ttaving

totittritteil un act tvliclt in the f.
't'
B l(|w., tutroultts to'.'critue uu,l ttlittl eittfif ..adtuit
-in lanltq thb. offctiec' or ttt uny rale I
u

subsran1iotty ult the fa.cts wlich cor.tstitut-e the olfeuge'

nti
Anyirngu Vs ll ( t9(rlt) ti^219 I

S.2.3-29 irrrd thcsc provlslolls arc

ln thc E,r,itlcncc'Act. conl'cssious..rrc a<lnrissibh: untlcr
cttrtccrncti tuilirlly s'itlr J tlttcstir:ns'

i. Wlro cirrr r;,kc dorvti lr conlcssiorr'l

2 \Yhat is a vaiid cort[c-ssiorl'J.

I
l. Whrt lrrc thc coriscrlucttccs tll'nrakirrg tt cortfcsSion'l
tl
 Who cin t:rkc tlorvn :r cortfc'siion'] -i
ttlt)5, irtt a';c'-rsctl
UruL,r urticlc 2s (l) tu.or thc cor':stitutiorr ot'thc l(cputrlic o.l'ugurrila'
t
person ls presumco innocen( until proven guilty or until he/she plead guilty'

rnal provision, an {.cused has a iight eithcr

to'remain silent and nol to.

i.hat nray incriminate him or.an accustid may

makc statements admitiing
make any Staternent
ccrtain
and t5c irnportanct of confcssions'
his or hcr grlilt. Ho*,cvcr, rccogriising tltcsc rights

safeguards havc bec.n rlevciopcd to

g,iid" thc making and taking of cont'cssions'
'.
-

of^ thrrank-UfCorpgrql by
- .. ., I

Befors t971, confessioris could be'rnade belore a police oflicei

-

.
a confessiop cou[d onty b'q
vi(ue..of decree 25/TlIhis provision was dmended.suchthat
inspector_.nd a magiltrate'
. *10" ,l n poli:..oftrccr of / above ihe rank of assistant lefore
.

i rnade by aly peis'oq white he or she is

I S..tion 23 (t) of the EAprovides that nq coirfession
it madc in
be provcd against any such person unless is
a

\ in the cuslody'of a police offtcer shall

-1 ttre immldiatq Presence o[.

I -
or abovc thc iank of adsistan! irispector; . .
L.J
G) a pqtice officcr o[ ,
:r', golety.gn ,.;thc basis of d"
shali be convlcted- o! an offelgq
e) a magistrate,. .but no pdrson
irnless the confession is cgrrobcrriited
by other materiat
confcision.made undcr paragraph.(b),
l
"'l
cviclgnce irr support oI thc conl.cssioit
itnpiic4ting tirat person:
I
tr
2l (2) of EA..prov'1tt-,11t::, tnut the Minister nraY''after consultatiori rvith the
ilU Secrioir
generdlly the conduct of'and procedgre
to be fo*owe<t
Chiet Justrce, nratce rules p.rescribing
:. frorn any
i rl pcrsgn. and rvhcn rccording a statcntcnt
;::t t II Uy poti.. otliccrs rvltcn irttcrvicrVing',lny
r. lj
t

il"t
!

ij 6-$1onaa Vs Uganda (l'97a) EA 46, a confession had been made to a

magistlall (oY

accuscd apail rrom trrc intcrpreter.

Tire.trialjudgc statcd
apperianr) rvho w.,s i ronc wirrr ihe
mu;der and
present. Appetlant rvas convicte<i of
that a police ofhcer sirould havc bcen
was'circunrsta*tiar evirlcnce' orr
sc*tcr,ccd to dcatrr onihc basis of voluntary confessiorr an,c
il a1:pea.l, court liclti thal the procedurc aclopted by the
magistratc rvas wiroliy concct'
That it

sirotrlclbc u confcssitlrt is rccor<Jcd' Cottrt

it
is trrltlcsililtrlc that thc lrolicc"ofliccr 1-''rcscrit'whilc
Strbtr'iSSiCnS' SOnIC
.frrrthcr sltrtctl flrat thc l'.r'*v-rsa:i aritclicicti bcca'.lSc thcrc rvcrc fr'cqtrcttt
.r
t.'
'L-'
 rvitltotrt justitrcutiort that conlessions wefc, bcing 'olitainccl by policc otticpri througir
inttlrsiott ttnd cvcrl usc tlf tbrcc. 'tlie- ncw law was intclrrlctl to cnsrrc that all confessions
rclicd on arc truly volirntary.

. \yh.at.is a valid confessiorr ?

S.24 UEA contairts a substatttivc. provision that makcs confcssions obiained tlrrough usc ol
lorce, violence, thrcats, iriduccments orpromises calculated to cause.an.untrue co.nfession to

be madc in adntissiblc. Scctiort 24 EA nrakcs such confcsslons.irrcleVant..lt providcs. tl'ini 'q.

coirfession nrtitlc by urr accuscd pcrson iq'iriclcvant ie iire inaking of itrc cont'ession appeuis

to.thp gqurt, having rcglrd to the.stat0 of rnind of the accused per.son. and to all: ihc
:
cirqunrstarrcys, ltavc bqcrt c:ruse{ by.any violence,. forpe., threat, iuducgrnent or promise
l.o
calbulated in the opinion of the c<iurt to cause an untrue confessioir to.bc ilade.'

Thelaw.insistsonvoluntarinessfor2.reasons;.....
1, Confessions..'are a suspect'spEcies o[ evid.gncg bccatisi peoplo don't noruraliy maiie
statenrent's ihat ar'e pre.-judicial io tlrgm in their interest.and so wlieic sucir s'tatenrenis are

madethereis.rcaSolltoSuspc9tthat.tlrcrc.rpasundu.cinfcrince.
.ri.,..
2. Ouijnvestigating. ntac[iqery rib..bounty. irf ttle. policing system thaL lacks rcsourccs, Thls
.ciuses. ovgi 2eatous police ollrccrs to
'i.,*:
i- fi
1l sqrt, of:rnethods of sccurit] convictidn 9.g.
ldgbr
tbrtttrirrgsuSpgcts,tlirectingthicatsiltlllcsuspclt'sfitinilyetc.
.'. .. .:

-.\ Under S.24 court must decide having r.egaid to.tiib State of rnind.of the accused whctlier-
there ryas I promis'e or an ihdueempnt, iioldncb, bic.ause if arly of these.thinls bperated-'or.r .

thc mind of. the accused, then.that confession wilt be considered involuntary. tn Abhsi '
I(a;ryikc'Vs Uganda (1993) 3.KI,R 76, Held that the voluntarincss or othcrwise of a
confession gan only bc analyse( at a trial.;

\Yhat thcn doc.s'r,OIuntlrinc.ss ntc:rn?

lrt l)l'l'vs. l'ing Lin (1973) 3r\!,1.J!:lt.l75,.tltc lppcllarrt wirs iln'ostutl lirr usinllrlrrrg.s. irlir:r
sonlc rcnlarks-lry thc policc, hc told.tltcttt.irbout his orvn part,in thc drug dcalings and everr.
.:
uiivc rnorc -inlirrnurtiort irboui titlrcr tlca[s. Orr tlrc issuc of r'utiattrar. tlrtlsc statcnlctlts werc'
irthrrissiblc agrrinst ltirtt'l 'l'ltc .ctlurt cntplt:rsiscrl thlt a conl'c.ssiorr lind t0 bc sccurccl.
volurrtar ily untl rvherc ln otrjcctio,r is ,',,is.,1 ubout a confcssion, thc onus is on thq
llrosccutiou to sutrsly ttrc jutl6c bcyon(l rcas<rrtablc doubt thzit thc'statcnrcrtt was i:rade'-
 volunltrily

.,\ 1>crsot.t itr:rutltority'is rlrtc.cttgltg,ctl iir tlic;rrrcsl, tlctcrrtiorr, tlrc c.'.:rrrrirr:,f it,,,,,1'l!ru uccusctl

or prosccution ol'titc tciused- R Vs Bburrre (i910) 6 Cll. AP.8 or sonrconc acli.ng in..the'
ptcscncc ;trtd rvithoui ii dcsciltt of suclt a pcrson c.g. iin lrrrcsting o['liccr.or''policuoi'trccr''

lravin g tltc uccusctl iir custody, thc cnriiloycr olthc accusccl pcrson if thc nrattir is revolvin ocr.
around ihe ernployr0ent: qtc.

In Niugrrdn artrt otlrcrS.Ut,t 2l EACA 316; Court Heltl.that it is a dutyp{-a judqe to.
examirie witlr closest c.aic and'.attcntion all circumstances in.which a confcision has been.l.

obtained [ionr an accuscd pciSoh pirticularly.if tnis perion has 6een at a polipe.stdtion Or a
'.
long.timc'before nrakiii'f ilrqt confession and that the onus is upon the pro.seqUtionto prOve;
' !..
.'afftimatively that a cont'cssion, 1i6s.'[cen obtained
' '-:
voltintarily ancl that if ttiere \yere:any
: r

i inducciiicnts they ccascd i'o qpeiaie Qn the nrind orilq accused at thc time of ihe'riklng'0fl'

.' '.:" " ;'r .-,

.." .j " :i..'....:.,

'trntlucgmcntsandTtiidats '... .: ..

confession !ria<irnisiibtqr:brtl this .. :

. witt only liappen wrrerc i1b1g ihinfig opeririect on thelmind of the

?ig-used ',hi1l
c3ysed th0 i :

i accused to say rvhat hd iaidl Theie is no s(fted lneas.ure of what amouht$ (o e itir.ut or an. ' .

indubcinerrt.an<l crrcir casciias. got'to.,be considered foi its own purpo-se1gifeu$Siancbs.'In .

- ....
Commissioner of cuStomi:andrexercise'Vs t(ar.ts (1967) ALLER tZ7, during.l'h.6 p,our9e. ,
'. j'-

I
. .: :'
of irw-estigating.iax evasrons,'Harts lvqs'irltenogated,for about 3 houiS a.rrd..he'mi{e
:
Somb in '
crinrinating 5-dmG5j6ns and. was convictetl on ap.peal.against the conviltio:h . Ctiuii HitO
'r
th'at thc.sc stilterncnts rverc not adnrissiblp becruse tlrcy would.not have been made hgd H nqt' ,
l.
) bcen told that he.n:ust ahswer ihe'questions oi face prosecutibn and thereforg were. made

II
J

t- In R V s Olicllo (1915) 2 VI;R 'l 69, tirc rppclhnt intcndcd to havc'scxuat intercoursc with a
l'
\./oman, after lengthy negotiationi, the lady agreed and identified a.site undct n 11ss with

grgund graiss. instcacl oi'lying dorvrr, thc la<ly clinrbcd or hcld orl thc tree and the'appcllant
pulled the necklace so as to frce her, she fell Cown and she died. The appellant was anested
I
ancl.rvrs tokl by tirc clric['confcss, confcss lrt<i your puriishntgrtt rvill bc srlal! ancl we shall

not.takc yo'.I to thc. "[Jivirnri" Whitcntan" ili](l hc confcssccl ancl was cortvictctl, on appcal
court [lcltl that tltc cottfcssiorl rvas ittaclnrissiblc bccausc it wus nratlc by i*tlucchrcut or
advantage ofttre d by a
llcrson in authority.

Fttrtltcr, in M.rv'angi S/o NJor.cge vs [], tire appellant

v.,as colvicte<l of possession of
a home
made gulr' Upon ltis arrcsl, ltc was takcrr to polico
lor <prcstioning.'l'lrc policr:,l.ljccrtlid not
cautiorl hinr but kept questioning him and
said to him the following wsrds. ,,you had bettei
tirink rvhetltcr ycrtt arc going to tcll ntc or not"
ancl he niade a statcnrcut irnnrctliltely. court
Hbltl tlrat thosc words contaitled an implied thrcai
which would,. render in adnrissible.any
statenrent made in consequenic.

Thi: above caseg are in line with,S. 25 of UEA which

provides.that if.it c6n b.e showq that a!
the time of nriking a slatprncnt, rhc threat or tnducemcnt
had not been fully rernoved, and
then the statenrcnt would bc adnrissiblc. .

Inducemehts / threats nray b9 eflecred in ways o*, than ju5t speeclr

'
thr.ats.against
fanily,t\c'acbtrsed ntay bc.kept in a darkrborir.and ".g.
1,, 'r_.
919'1 be cntcrtained by the sound of
b.eatjng adnrinistered / sominE frgm other roomr;,tt..crused ,11,r
.h.i
may just be staied at. In R vs
'Zayeckas
(i970) \vLR sl6;'rhc qccuscd was ch.aigett with trroftilfronr a icfcprronc
booirl
prior to'thc trial he aiked the.police officer
" if t nake a statemen, *irt yo.u give mL bail:
now? And the poricc.offrcer iaid "yes;,, and
the: man madc a writteo ,o,r"r.r"o,.. ,.0 ;;,
' cgnvicted, on appcal Court rleld that it rnadc no..diff.r.ncs
ihat it is the accused not thc
policeofficerwho'raised thb quesiion of bail, That the:staternent'rvas
made ds uresult.of an-
'-- -.-
inducement by person in authoiity ahd therefore ,.
1 the convic.tion *0, ,,r,,;;,r;;.

In Ibrahinr V Thc King (1914) AC S99, the appellant murdered

anothei officer and when
he rvas taken to his strpcrior oflicer arrd askect..'"rvhy'haviiilt
you suclr it scnsclcss :rct?,,
antl the appellant attswcrcd "lbr I or 4 days he lras a-bused nre, with out a doubt i killed hi'r.,,
on appeal against thc adlllission of this stirtcnrcnt on thc
basis that it rvirs involuntirry, thc
Aplx;rl Cotrrt trcttl ttr:rt ttrc'ilPgrclluttl's c:onlcssioir rvls ir voluntlrry
slrrlcrlurrl Scc.usc it rv.s
not nli:dc li'o:rr lc:rr ot';.trcjutlicc o;,l:opc ot'udvantagc.

Sirrril:rrly, irr Ug:tntl:r Vs l'lrruku.s/o [ittutu (1978). t.lCLJ g, Corrr-t

Scltl tlrat a conlcssio*
extrlcted lroni an accuscd pcrsotl by torturc can hardly bc saicl to be volultary.

,l
 iIsulh corrlcssiorr as is rclcr.rccl to i,', sc.iion 24 is ma<Jc
scctiort2i liA is to rher:l'fcet tha.t
I

aftcr tirr:.ir,pre.ssiorr ca.scd by any s'crr

violc*cc, rorcc, thrcat, inducc.rc*t or promise has,
is rclcvitnt.'this 1'rrrlvision inrlllictlly placcs
I

iri t1u trpini.it ol'rlrc corrrt. bcur [ully rcnrovccl, it

surrounding the nraking oIa confession and
a tluty on courls ro irtvlcstigatc thd circunlstanccs
rcntovccl at the timc of lire
if corirt is oIthc opinion that thc thicilt or irrcluccrtcnt hacl bccn
corrfsssion, thcn it,,vill l:cconrc adnrissiblc.
rn Arikarrjclo:tlrn.s/o okoba v ll (1961) IiA 9,

the gal disappeared and rvas found

a rnother lctt at year old. daughter with the appellant,
shc lrnd bccn scxtrally assatrited prior.to
drorvned, thcir rvas n.:edical evidencc'to show lhat

Ihe dcath. whcn tlre appclla.rlt was arrcstccl,

he admittecl having drowned thc gal 1 dny
g6ing to say what you told me yestei'day but arn not'
bcfore.' A policc o[['icer told him. "1tour
',going to force you to'do so.'There afte-r.he was cautigl9d apd he made t O"t*:t]t::"
or.an order in the mind of ihe
appgai. Couit helrl; that the rvords did not constitute a.thr.at
uecause.they wete tempere<i by the words
wlich followed and ariy possib[e effects
. .ppatunt . t'

i rcmovcd by thti luoids qf ''

,n., might still lravc had on lhe appellant would havo beqn bated or

caution' that follorvcd

bcgaUpe it rvas miide under a promiqg

,U,]g.ei S,2.6, a confcssiorr cqn ,rot be mercly lneievant
or ih drunt3g.;r,or as a rcsult oEItl:Ut'o,'1t
. <jfseeurity.or,in corjsequcnce o.'t:dcccpiion Pi'
ilcin"n*, AC 2'0, the appeliint'wis arrested for the-f! murAel
Vp Tlie Queen tig6gl I ilt
wtiilc;at the sa.[e, tcild ihe friend that h9 had murdereld
o1 :
re of the'men ahd' -eyen 'descdbed '
r

was re.c'oveied and lic was tor"iicted: Iie

rthgr'c.thc nroncy had.bccn.lriddcq' Thc moiiey
I
L_-: ' appeal.e..d.Court
the'questiohs that B asked were
tleld l"..ttiat thc appcliqiit regardcd Bi as a tnrltcd friend,and
' .1rny promises neither was there compulsion in conflessing the murde'r
because B
riot based orr
-:t-. il' l.^ ..,..r. rnlrl
a.
ncvii prtllttisctl orily iI lic rvlrs toltl'
B w4s nq irtore thari a possibic rvitir'ess of the
Heltl,?. that ar thc'tinre o[ tire confession;
I

!'rict thut ir pcrsorr is rr possibtc witncss

for tlrc proscctition', clr;cs
I lirtlsccutron iulo lhc trrcr.,;
I

is
The validity or othenvise of the confession becomes an issue when a confession
mcans
clrirgcngcd in otrrcr rvorrrs. wlrcrr cascs
or repudiation and retractio' arise..llctr';rction
that
but he rvants to gc back on it, hc may clainr
that thc accusecr l:as irdrrritted the statenrent
llcl:trtliirtirttt tllcillls tl:''tt thc
it r'irs nor rrrc. lrc.riry cluirn thlt it rvirs n nristnrrtslatcc!'
nla<Jc thc statcnrcnt rilcgcd. Rctractiorr aritl rcpudiutiort
accirsctr pc*iou trcnics tirat rrc nr:vcr

I
 arc coll'1.r.rou [cilturcs of Ugarrrlir's criminal lltrv antl thcy lrriso ttccitusu tll'lhc rviry conlussions

are extractcC

'l'uryauroi Vs.Uganda (196?) EA 84, thc appcllant was alleged to hd';e nrurdered

somebody wit5 thc usc o[ a spcar. '[hc tlcccascd hacl rnadc a 'Jying dcclaration to his
daughter and it adnritred. Thc appellant made a confession and the following day he made
a

differcnt sratcincnr cornplctely clcnying thc'offcncc, only thc frrst stiltcnlcnt rvas'irdtlriccd irl
the eviclence. Court

Heltll. TSat the basic diffcrc0ce bctwccrl rctractiou rlnd rcpurji'ation-is tltirt n rctractccl .
statqrnent ocgurs when the acqused person.admitted(s) that he made a statenent but now
.seeks to recant (renounce or di5avow).'Geherally on the grounds that he had.been forced or
denies
inducecl to nrike rhc staicrnent. While h repudiptc statement is one whicir thc accused
..:
. hc nevcr tttadc.
':

gcltl L 't6..rt it is a wcll cstablirt.C ruie of prudenib thar it is tiangerous to ilit upcn a
retracted corrfession -unlcss it is conoborated in nratprial partic.ulars or urllEss the cou( is .,1

satistrcd in its truth. Thai lrial Court shOuldaccgplwith caution a

qonfession which tt1 bef :
.t,l]

and must fully satiify ,n

rcrracred o1 rcpudiatg$ or loth rctraoll .t9'lepudiated "1t...
ln.ll
circunrstatrcesoftliecasethatthecorifcisionii-true.
-
Ueio f . That t5c dying ttuclarirr'rorr should hhve beeh testcd for rcliability as to idcrttifrcation. ,,

nrttdtr and it was.

When a confeisiol is challe nged, it niust.be provbd that tlic statement was
made voluntarily and the.onus is or1 thi prosecitiqn. ' . ..: ..

Ileld 4.-If the'accused makcs'nrote itan one sthtcment-to the policc, the prosectttiort Should'.
tender all stateinents made by rhe accused. Duffus; Ag VP stat'ctt
in thiS cdic tha.t-"it..is a
vrell established rule of prudence that it'.is dangerous to act upon a retracred corifcssion
; a full consideration oi
unless it is corioborated irr riraterial pa iiiiular or unless ihe court, after

, is satisfred of its iruth. fnaiin so far ai it fcll short (udge's direciion) ota
to be
I
warning to the assessors that in the absenie of corroboration a retra.cted confession"is
i
rcccivctl with.grcat caution and rcscrvc, auiouutcd to u niir,lira.tiort howcvcr, wc arc
cxtra judicia!
satislicd t6irt i1 5is judgcnrcnt thc tearnctl judgc hud acccptcd thc nllllcllant's
that tltcrc rvas cvqry.
conlcssion as iru,: only tlicr lirll considcriltion ol'circurlstiulcr:s arrd

iustii-rcuti(}lr liri.strclr:leucl)t:tricc."
r\l p:rgc 91., c0rrrt sl:ttctl fttrlltt:r llt:tt ".'-.tllt:'st;ltcllrcllt
it'ctli'ruboriitccl itt
is rctlurrctl in all cascr irrrtl usuirlly cuurt rvill acl ort tltc cotrltssion
'!'trutlr is
sor.rlc particulur by.irrtlcocrrdcnt cvitlcncc irrccPtccl by thc cottri. lltrt co:'roirorttiort
'r.tcrial
lrot *cccssirry 1l i..nv uut! court nury ilct on a conlcssion alouc
ii it is liliiy sirtisticd aftcr
 ettrl r10rbc
crinsi<.lcr,ing:rll rrriitcriili lucts rncl srrriouiltling ciicurrrstarrcc:) that tilc crllticssion

trtic.{ '
,it't.lg:rrttl:r \is Iirrl,ruu s/il Iitiilrr, c()l'r(tt){)liiiiot: iiltitl!ti.l'u 'slrttqht
trls'-r'
;\c,:r.r.tiirr:i. r ti,r cilS,..
i r;i'li:ry btll p'rtilci,-rttc cl'prilcl'icc
*it5ut,g!r il r:; rrurt ir
'.!,;
Ugnrrtl:r Vs Niritikivrigo iirrtlotlicrs
(i9??) l'iCB 102
a

; i{orv nltkitlg of r stttenrcrlt can Uo provctl'

: This crn be provcd tirrorgi., coricitictirrga triai
within I trial. This is a'fltit1i trial'within ihc
prosccutiou can bc oral svidcnce
nr,,rin tri*r ..r*ti.tirc rypc oIcvitrc*cc thilt can bc led by trre
Jafior <Jocnmentary evidcnce, tn Krrule Ys Uganda (1992'93) HCB
38, the l'p':*llttl*
reiterated rhe law und stared rhat l trial.rvithin a trial should have been n:td.t:jt'1:l:l::

rnrrh.about the confe3siort (in thig 6asc

a rrran had re'tractedfitn.ton*:::uoJtTl:,.$-::t:
'
. ccuft also eiuphasised rhat it.is trite iarv thar
a retrBcred confessiort wott't noryally !]P1Ort

but ttrat thc court rnighl tio so if it is

cohviction unlcss ir is cbrroijolatcd by othu cvi<jonces ']
of the eqse that the cqnfessign nrylt lie rue' . l.
frrily satistied in the olrclmslanee$
.
"
..:.
:

in r\nr's vl..Ugirqidn tiglz.ll) ircR ?g, court irer'J ihat it is trite li*v that rvh:tl
tJ ; iiirrtrrcr, is challengud, titen t'irc olfccting decusgd:mti!!i1ivt1'
,1.,. arlinissibility of;a,conf(ssion
.,vithiir I iila!;.fhat,1hq
grorrnds'of tr'ojecrion riltorrgij r triql
ehtncc tti s t,itilt y ori.tcnco lris
t"id'nee of Uo.ttr'lU*, w[9t'ler B
purppr",orlatiiat.*ittiin a.trlai it io. iecidc upgn itre
'confesliot slrollcl be {dnrittcd or nol'' '. -
' :

[reB ?12 { cspuerairy srh nr'J 6tli H.idrirqirbqd}

)&, uganir,r r/s Doi \vablyrrc 0g?6)
I
I

Corroborntion of a confesgiort
nnd r.etrfictioll, corrob.ralion is a vcry
importflnt tspieti bcsar:sc
^r '' "'
In rtatters ot'repuclilttion
! a'
J -- are
confessions in r.rnnt'"t
^'" ia rrnln,v '0aies s"lspecls' coulrt' ryill 'lnsist
on co*oboration'bifore
- :. .'
oticidirce c'onnecting thc
Th*e is always nau.r io iook foi other iiidepcndcnt
n c0rrviction.
supportg oiher cvidei'{li'O l"
ii a.ccu$ed tvirtr rhe erirng.,1'his trorild be evidsnce th.qt
woultl hc tiiraugh rvitricsses, i0c,,ii':1€nts etc.
lvio*i Gilses qmrhL{iiE tli'tt thc
j recerd nn,J it
gn this' as a
corrvict oil a{ uiicoitoborated confcs5icn but atthough cottfls insist t
court won.t
. uvircriic egtiaot ritc necirssd, tlrd ceu* !:1ily
lii**er o!. priictice, ii thcrc is ovcrryhclmir,.g
*iirh the requirement fcr corobcrelicit.'tn Kai':te v$ ugnncrr (i5ovai' The
tlis'ertsc
ivon'i ri6Hri';iiy
stii;Lenr: cctrrt rilso cniid:lsistil
iht,r ir is rritc !trw iirat t retracte'J conrcSSiclll
dc s0
unicss it i$ cofi'cbqrateii by ctircl cvid0ne':s l:ttt ihtt thc ef'ult rnie'llt
s\ti;rroi-t can.ricrion
 if it is lirliy satislrcd irr tltc circttrttsluttucs oIttrc clse that thccorrti:ssiorr nrust lrc t*rc.

PROCEDURE OI' RI'CORDING CONTI,SSIONS

Siction 2'l thc Evidencc Act Cap 6 and the Evidencc (Statenrents of Poliqe Ofliccrs)
ot.

Rulei sl:,r3-r, provicics guidelines on i.tgrrcgatio*, instnrction nrcthocls uncr

nS 1,.,racticcs
rvell as arrang'entents tor thq custody. and treatment ot'peisons
subjepted to any fornr of
.t
arrcst, dQtcrrtiorr or inlllrisopntcttt in arty tcrritory undcr juris.tiCtioir. 'l'1cy I
urc irrtqrrded to r

guidc. police officer.s-in their intqrrogation i

of persong whether in custody or otherwise. In
I
. partictilar thgy arg airilcd at ensuring that confcssiorrs rccorctccl 'ri
by policc offlccrs irrc
i(.
obtained fui{ll lronr .a. Suspecl. Hoyever, the procedlre laid
.do.rvn i1 thc above SI_43-I
should be oondubt.ed whlte b'eiring in,minOitre cas. oi fiesto Anrlroa Aicnua
& another V -
UgandoSuprcrtie.CourtCilrrilnaIAppealNo.lofD98'
.. :

ln, ugunda vq-Kututcrtlu'rntl qnott,ff (19?4) HCt!.14?, the

isluq rvus aclnrisstbillty of
extra-judicial statenrents niadc by both aqcused before rhe magistrate.
Both a..,rse(l: had
nrinor injuries on thcir bodics, iliel'*q qucstloned sipaiatcly roi ut oiri.tiuif'un irour an<l ttig, .

AIP iook thim to. lhE'locirl magi.srraig: t'lc 1!sg took witti.trini'1 corporn[ ro.act is-a'::-
,. | . ,.i ':..;1 .-'
.:

'irrrcr;xctqr. Tltc AIP.fils!wcni i,i'to scc.tiic ntirgistrairauct1iltuusscttrvitli tlic nirigistnlrc

lof _,
gonrciinre bcfore urh.ring ih" u".ur.d' i,iro tlre mqgisir.q[ ..t unib.ers.
He t al toio ,n" '
magidtratc thdt thi lcc0sed Oer.s0|i iv.arited to confeps. Tht statcnienrs were'raken -and',,
cottv[ctcd, from which thcy:app&tea. On appeal, Court,held ttr'ai ttre Alp .ivas very
'i -

:\ <tisturbing and that the AIP was with lhe nragiStraie for 15 rninutes tellins him about the
: .' r .;'
accttss.ed's earlier statenlents.to'him. That the presencg qf 'the.-.police corporal in the
;' ...
charnbers of the nragistiati lor :intemret.r.
u'se as an \,ias intentional, and ono with sole
purpose of extracting stiltcnterils frorri llrc accuied persons.

lrt Ugandl Vs P..l(ukoza anti othc.rs (1972) 2 ULR 12, tho first accusccl rvas intcrrogated.
l'or 3 tlays antl latcr (irkcrt to rlrc nr:igistraic rvcrc hc was cl,nrgc.i aoii
irltl 5c rliulc
.cl,t,ti.rlctl
ir cortttssiort. '[hc
l)rosccutor sitt ilt onc cnd ol'thc tablc ivitir his typc ru,]it.,. a*d tlcru rvrs
:tlso n 1:olicc corls.rablc prcsctil'. Thc prosucutor irppcncled tfic cqtilicarc ro t5c cticcr that tlrc

still(lllcllt ir;ul t;ccrl l'cctrrtlctl hy lrirrr iit tlrc l)rcscncu ,,1',, ,,,ngir(r:rlc rrrr uppc;rl. ('gtrrl lcltl
tltltt tht: lr:ati)tril'.c rvAs rvroltu irr contjuctirrg proceedings aS'if it rvaS a frial a:id ihereby
lilvttl'.1 iltc accilsc(l art i:':11>resstotl ihai hc lracl to r'':rirkt'a statctncilt in iris dclcr:cc..l'hat no
tl,ttlt/ tt'tirnttiirti't siroirld bc adrttitirstct'cd rv[c1 tlrc lcctrscci w1s abriut to rrrirkc il st.dlul.licllt to
 I

thc\.nragistratr: erriri iirat thc mililncr irr rvhich tirc stalenrcr'lt wtls rccortlctl indicaied
thatit'wa's I

in ticl rtta<lc to thc polic'l oitlcer and nct to ti:e magistrato'

I

'l lrc 1.tr'ircurlit';c is lts iillirr'.vs.,

c'ii'r:tittis.tattccs or s:urrouttt!ir',gs.
'fhc itcctiscti s!:otlii! i'tci lrcc
r.'ii',.,1",nu*t-bc llrvotii'lit:ic
iirrrl'corrrlpr.tlblc alrl sccurc, il'in a nr:rgisirirtc, it should t:c tt nrlrgistrltlc ill,tl itrt intcr-prcicr.

'l
2. T5e person slioufti be cautione<l, the wol{js in the law are the iollowing, you'n..cl
not say

anything unlcss you.wisl, but rvlratevcr:iou say will be taken.down in rvriting and'nlay
be

given in eviclence.

l. lt should be inrportSnt to asce!1air, the i?nBuag,e whi.ch th.e person vrishes tq use.bqcausc
had becn
thc confession nr,.rst bc.f ai,.cn ,loru,l vcrbatim. This rvill detcrmine rvhctlrcr therci
a'n
.l
intcrprcter or: riot-
'ftr[ statcn'renl ti'rcri shotrkl bc takcn down as it is bcing nradc by tire
accused pcrson. After recording tl.a staterlent..it should be read back to the accused.ip thar

he nray conlrrrn its truiliiulncss. The accuscd shouid then sign with a thumb
print as a sign of
-:
dpproval.and then the rnagistrate also signs.The document sho.uld then be sealed
*ith a court'

scal arid the accused can bc esco(cd back.

to pol!!.e
Tlie law rclating ro srarement made to police offtcets ts evidence (statemenis
ojlccrs) n,i*,- It is broatlly ih, .,in,',',, prilciicc, but tllc qonrlitiotis / environttlcnt'shoultl pq. .

a'sccrtainmcn!
irco,catrtio*', iu!e 9 arid l0- kinrjs oiqrrestiorl ruio6, (no cross examination)'
of the larrgtragc irulc ?), and staicrnc*t i.s rcad back tftcnwaids anrl necuscci signs.

(lg6l) BA ls3, thc rcccrrliug oflrcci failccl to n<lnrinister caution and it vras
lrr ll \rs l(irgrr.,r
,hcld; that thcre \,/as no r,,fti.i"n, compliance with thc nrlei
and the statemen[was tendered
I
\, inntlmissii:1,:.
J

CONFESSIONS AGr\INST CO'ACCU

Tlris arisas wherc 2 or more pccple ccmrnir an offence anc-l they are joirrity charged but.one

I
of thci.r, mlkcs fl stiiictlieilt ,,,ri'licir n1110unl5 t0 ii conrcs$icir, sotnetimcs cvcir irupiicnt!:tg tlte
pc;son bcing t'riei! joi:itiy rvith othcr
i,ti:er accrisco. Unclcr S.2l ct UEA, rvi:ere r.n accrlscd

mirkCS ir co;rf,jssiCil :rficCiiltg i:inr or itc: ancl thoSe

OtilCIS' iilc cou( utay' tailC intO

aS agaii:it fitiicis'
corisiCeraliOn tl'.rt r;cnlcssion as agaiirst Li:l.t person as'rrcll
 'Ihe irnportar:ce
of .this provision is that
the court can uSC i rnnr.^".r^-
'ilffi:J:.::: u

:::: ;:, .#,il :: ffi:.lil:."". ;,.;,; ;ffi 'Jili;

e,cnr r,o, ,r,..o.;J,[il
orhcrs. *thc sra
be taken into consideration'
lJ;ffil::il:[;lil:,:ff:;
The rational for this ivas
exprained in the case
lVatlingorrrc (lg4l) g
EACA.l.l, ilcltl ,r,r ,,nr,,rri,,.,O
of in R vs j..',.
a rc,l ir*tl rluntiti.;.;,,.,_;,.,;
'person who rnakes it
trirs cxposed hirriserf
to the p.ains and penart,.,
olfence ir rt',. guaranrcc ro, it. tr,,tr.,rurn*;ffi
ancr this ,*r.r*.;;:
..-:Ye v' rr'v sratc,rcnr.,,
Musa Luyinda vs tt
ir960) EA 470 . .

Uganaa Vs Akai slo elotoyi

t
,,r,rr;HCBg .. .,..

In Uganda vs lVrugcnyi
Geofrri:y and another
(rgg4) 2 KAI,R 76,
evidehce is nor onrv Hcrd trrar thi.skind:0f,.
accornptice evidence-
^i.o
;;;J,
but ii i,
_.*r, kind and can
.onlybeusedinlayingassurance.rothcothcrev,o.,,.,n,,nstthcco.itcctrsed..

hl Kar'4yr Nlgrrji
aud othqls 20 E{.cl
:

1/o J.?a'the l,rrst and scco.ct

confcssions and inrplicrrtcd apiictianrs iuaac,
rtrc third app.llunr.
orrri'0.'n rhosc contcssir.lns rrrcrc *osrno.-
othgr eviclence againsr .rt,,
ir,irct appellant. ..r.,.u.,.'
il; ffi#.i;';;:T.
by one aecuscd,, .,,,,.j;o;,o;,.;, ;;_; ;;::
;TrTiil. ;;T coiroboratio, it,s enor,rgh.
...,,.a i]o r,ora.
to co'vict. .Wh:rt is required
evidence which, when linked
rvith and
,;.*a;_jr;
suppo*o:0, ,r; ..
ttre. co-accuscd
rcmovps bevond reasonabtc
doubt about thc qucsrion """Lro:; "; "-"""::*
',r*...*,".i,ll.: ;:;;;;.
'l'r\nyangu and ottlers vs Uganda,.'Four
appeltants were convicteci
judgcs co,clir{iri! of nrurder in H.c the
tirat thc killirrg was al,.uour".;;r-n,;,;..;;ffi;ili,
were ensased as nrernbers "r;-;.;i;-
::,:i::::anncl!11
tttc allppllaltls lit,t thcy rvcrc
ntcntbcrs oI
oran a,,red *r.r.il;;;;il;r;;
thc ga,g'co,sisted solcly
ol.sr:rtcrncrits rnrtk: by
(ltcttl l, :r llolicc olliccr bclbrc bcirrg
clurgctl, At the trial thu
arrririssibil!ry ,r. thcsc
stiltct)lcl'tts u'as objccled to oll
- Brourrrl that they were obtained
'l'hc jutlgc
ltorvcvcr ilil,tittctt lhc sl:tlcnrcrr(s:rrrr
in breach or trre
1u,tg.,. ;i,;
trc;rrctr thcr,.a.s;rcco,rgrricc
c:rc!r tr;:;lglltrrrt. ()lr :rpllc:rl, cvitrr:rrcc:rg:rirtst
Cour.t lrelrt :r tirllrrrvs;
l' l'hat t!:c jtrtlgc':; rutcs lti's
''rrrly rtrlcs o!'1lr':rcr!cc ar<l it i, ntrrry,
i,, lric t!iscr.crio. or-t'c rrial
iirt!ilc to illiurrr.s.i::tcir.lurIs,,,a,ia 1.,.., il.J.Cusctl
I)ct.sen alflrotrgh [!r,_.v u,...,..rt 0Lrtuirr.:d
strictly in
 eccol'di'.t'!cc rvith tite rttlcs'
agairrst thc maker
'1111gtlr)l to ir colllcssiorl i:; orrly cvi<-!cttcc
2. Tiriri ir stittct'llcli( rvliiclt tlocsrt't ,i

ol'ii.
.J,'llrrsr.iri(lllcl'it\\!crtlll)l':ctt!tssitltts:r:l''!rvcictrtilvcvitl'':llct:l'-lllills"lltcil't:iirk':r:;'
pr0pcr. Sir clcr,c.t I)c l.estrrrtg'
\'-li'itr tlris ilrsc
-1..*rirt rrcvcitlrclcsa..,.'r,.r;i1s wcic
is otliv ct'i''tcncc flgalnsl'
lit:rt, tirilt it slillcircllt rviriclt t!ocs:ft itliloillli to it coitlcssiori
rrr)tt'tl
co-accused' it rnay' in
joint -:tl,:U]tn , -. rri i-, :
rhc nirrkci ot ir. li it is a confcssion and inrplicates
,
,iRro not only u..ompii&;vjdence bu!'. i
corisideration,, againsi rhc co-dccused, It is howcver =t.r'-'

it is sufltcient by itself to
co'accttscr!' A s"atcniel 1t is noi a confcsSibrr unless '
as agairtst tlte

il;.convic.tiotrofthcpcrsonnrirkingitoftheoffencewithrvhichtitistried.
i;.
5 extra j-udiciil statemgnts
:rn Gop" and otSers Vs' B, 6 appellants -. murder I ,2'4 'and. made '
'
that''the weight of evidenci
of a
to a magistrate ab( )utaweekaftertheirahest.CourtHeldthat,.thewelgnt,..,'.. '
is '
iessene where' he obviouiiy intends to
'confession by arr accused agiinst his bo-accused 'd
dcies fuliy implicate hiroself'
t i, .o-.,.'.-,.,s.0 aril .not himscli, although actually he
irrrplicarc
be useel as aSsurance to other lldtntt^
'lhat Uqtl:r UEA conlessiqir.an accuscd can only '

, ,l cridcnce ivhich only fails short by t vcry narrow *attil of,lptlmcnt Of .

. against.co-acctlsc-''
.. qnd cin not'bg used as basis for prosccuhoni .' ' '
proof rrcccssary foi a <;orlvictiori ,:', . '

l8 (Cove6 rvhY evidcnic ot'siich i klnd'ii'

Ug,aiida Vs Sebttgtiz
'vI HCB
.i arrd otlrcrs (t988-90) 've r

corrsiderccl rvcrk)

coNFEsStoNS I'EADINGTODiscovBRYs'29,', - * -^., may

to discovcry of other facts. sometimei a statement
I This refers to infqrmaiion leading
in.rriscov-ering'other
maker but may assist the nolicl
I

.ot havc rhc value of co'victing its

I
J

ot
/ confgssions'uscfur in'discoveiing the conrrnillion
statenrents
crinrcs. s.2g n*kes such
-1
I
:
!

oiltcr crintcs-

oi murcer
tjganda (19?3) I ULR 1i iiic Appellant rvas convicted
ln Jolin l(otrert oilu Vs '
deosa;ed
\,1a3 based efltirci,v orr
rlyirtg deelnreticn.
of il r'.,oman. The .onui.fun :nn :'
i.sp.:1.,;ctlwcl:i.lil).\{harshcsaidlvasir,ra|d$i,3,'viirrcssls(htrsbanciai.:ii3vi.ilagers)..ihe
iva.s said ro iravc takcr'
rlre <lcce..rscri wcre lloi clicitcri ir the tria!. Thc kirling
cxact wcrds or-
Eut it rvas clear that ii tilt
rvitnesses
,.:utsirie ii:'; ,Joccasecl's hOtisc at abotlt 6:00 pr*'
pl;rcr
 wct'c tltltllltrl, shc tt:ttttctl thc lrPpclllttt rrs
lrcr killcr:: on lppcirl.c.rrr.l lclrt llr:rt. S.29.1.l,.A
had to be strictly interprctcd. tt could, in
cerlirin cir.u,rlrion.es involve rhe iritroduction
of a
cortlt'ssiott thlrt cotrl<l olhcrwisc llc irti*i^rissiblc.
r\ll th.t rvoulil bc irrrrocluccrl u,rlcr thc
scctiott ivas suclt piai-t o!'a statcttle.it as led
riircctly to the discovery olsornetling. Thc
lact
t!iltt onc scl'ltcl)cc itt'a stitlct:tsrtt lultt lctl
ttr rlrc rlrscrlvcry s.y ol'rr rvuirll.rr tliti
*.r r,c,rr llrirt
t!'lu'.r'iir,ic i:l:ic!ll,jt.it cotrlrl be p.t:t u:. l:i
sucli il !^ilsc, only onc sclltcncc slrotrlcl be
1:ut.iI
ri'illtottl rtt;rkitrg rc[trcttcq lo llri''r'crtraiiit!cr
ol'rlic st:rlr:u]l.nt. Apllt;rl rrllurvr-\1. - C:0rrvic.tion
trti:rsltut!

' In R vs Kasule ancl o.thers (1948) l5 EACA 148,

three appellants were convicted of
nru'rder' The sec.ond appellant made a
votuntary confession to the AID and
ir rvas admittcd
utrder the evidence ordi0ance. The second
and ihird appellants, case was largely orr;u."
' the statements nradc by'a gornborota'chicf.
tirrt oppeuor,,*0, ir.,,r,u o.;;.,;;;;
' clrief ari<l then hc i'as dnbqun{: no caution rvas adnrinistered.
The chief asked t,rt,;.-ri
how he killed his fathcr arid hc nladc thc
confessig' and the appellant also :nadc sinrilar
corlfcssio*' on.dpiriai, court Iicltl th:rt fo.r.siarcrncrrs
nradc ro the chicf by rlrc 2. irplicltants,
'tltc golrrbololir chicl'tltusl not bc rcg.aidctl as a'police;ofliccr; trut as
r persor irr a.thority.

l;Wittrtlteuscofrelevantauthorities,ex,iniinetlrelaryofconfe.ssi0rtsinUgautla:
' ---'---' -
. 2. Define arrtt ivrite stiori,otes ou thc foltorving; . :

a) Beyon<l reasonable Ooirbt

b) Res gestae
c) Estoppel by conducr
d) Ilurdcrr ol'proof

3' " A stltcrncnt is supposed to bc votun.tarily rnactc in tris oryn rvorcls by ttre dccuscd
person altcr ltc'ltas bcett ctrrrgetl uttd.cautioncd.
If there is suspicion ttrat arl clerncnt of
I
coerciott or pcisu.itsiott or iltttuccntcttt h:rs bccn prcscnt
irr it,s nrat<ing, it rn:ry rcldcr
tltc cortl'essi,rt,sii,r,rd,ttis.sibtc" the C.A irr liabiarro I(irrenc vs
lt (1911) g EACA 96.
Discuss citing rclcvarrt authori rics
-i:r) rlitlt tlrc lrrllt ttf irttlltrrritic.r, cr:rrrrirrc tirc
liroectturu rvhicS str6rrlrt ltc [.lloivctl ill
rccortiin g con l'cssiotls.
ll) \\'lrll cirr rrr:rlic :r corrfcssiorr irr..rdnri.ssilrlc i, cvitlc,cc.l
5' Il0rv ltlvc.co-urts aplllictl provisiorts rcl:rtiug to adrnissi6ls irr tlc Ugu.tl^
c*itlc*ce
 Act'
...:r!..r^r\rnr\riiro:rrrt' e principle
6.illtrstrntiitgyourrcspotlservit!tapllrolrriate.autlroriticstliscusstlt
gor,crttittgllrd:rrlrnissillilitv.ofevitlcttceo[sintilnro.[fcrtccs.

Iinlliitrtrt l(int'rtc Vs ll
onc nrade i* riis own rvor<Js by thiiiccused person aftcr hi
r-lcitr; trrnt a.s(atc*rc't is sirpposcd
lf there is suspicion that the elements
qf coercipn or
has been, charged and cautioned'
in
h.as bcert piesent in making it' may render thc consequence
pcrsuasio.. or inclticcmcttt

adrlissible

1
J
I

L]

'l'oPic

OI'lN10N tivlDIINCti
to
vrhat a perso* thinks about
an alrcgcd fact. rr courd bc as
a statcnrcrit abour
.rru opi*ion.is
 c)

whe.ther the fact tcok place or not as to who caused tlrat [act, or about rvlrat could have

.happened.. )'.latters of opiniorl arc conclusions or inferences instances. Witnesses are

norrnally invitcd to testity about flacts as they perceive thcrn and rrot to give conclusiorls thai
tlrcy lravc nradc.

I;'thct-gj1qf.g.t:ru[gi is that the opinions of rvitneSses as to the existance of facts are

inaclniissible. Some of thc reasons advanced forthisare;

l. Partiality ;

2. Opinions are very likcly to bc'influenced by hearsay.

'lhcrq are instances ho\r,uver,. rvhen evidence of dpinion rvill be ddmitted but this is done as

anrcxccqtion. Thcselinstartces are coyered in S.43-49 UBA.

Untlor ihcsc sgctio:rs, 2 categories of opiniort evideuce are provided for.;
l. Opinion of cxpcrts.
2.opinionofordi4arywitnesses/non.exile4opinion.i

EXPERT.EVIDENCE a

. ,'.:
S.43 qf UEA provi{gp that when a q:ry ha: t: form. al opinion }pon q point of foriign law,
,or of science or. arl oi *
to identity'of irand writini or.'finger impqessions, the. opinions of
petsQns'specialiy skillecl. in such matfiit are r.i.rant, suih persons are cplled expertsf, , :

The de'cision as io..r4rctircr o pc.rson is qualifred to give ev.idence df opirrion as +ir.cxpe* is

made by the judge. He consiCcrs ;i nun:rber of factors incl.uding the following:

.///^ .

,11. Educational blickground.''

I) Oriinrrity the person will,be judged to be'an expert if she/ he has the relevant educational
backgtound whiCh enables hinr/her to become conversant with what he/ she is expected to
-i 'a person'is
teStify about. Bcfore evidence of such accepted, that person's eclucational

backgrouncl tnust first bc ltut ort recortl, cach t-re!d'of cxpertise rvill rcquire it's orvtl level oI
qgali!-:carions. hi Odindo Vs li (1969), thc appellant rvas corrvicted for riding a tuotorcycle

rvhilc undcr i!rc inl'lucncc'ol'uictrliol. tt rvts not disltutcd tlrirt ltc rvas lirrttltl lrclplcss orr thc
road. Ar rhc rriul lr policc ott-rcer resti[red tltat rvlten the ntan rvas lound ltc could not givc his
palnc, ire coul<J iiot staniJ orl (r:ic lcg anci that irt his opinion the:riatr \\as too drunk to be

\-2

-\/,
 capable of conirolling iirr: r'notor.cycle. The Coctor also gavc his oiriniort aLror-tt thc mail'
mcltal stliic i.i,. iSrrr tiri:t'und ihc issue.rcsolved rvas whether the opinion oithe polige oificer
rvas adnrissi'iti,J.as cxDert cvidcncc. Court held that the police ofticer \Yas llot an expcrt anti

rliat lre coulC not givc iris oprr,ion as io what he thcught the rncntal sliiie of [ite."tcc'.tsec,i'"as
beciiusc he rvas ncri cFralilled irr such matters. The evidence oIthc doctor on lhe other
hand

was acccpted'odcausc he had ttre requisite educationai qualifications to give an'authoritativ-e

:
oprnton.

have formal
2.:Thq eiperiertce that a person haS in that freld, Some expert witnesses may not:
training inthe dreas th'ey testify about.They may instead have vast experiencd and.as.si:ch'.
quiilify to be experts. Experience in this sense means that b person will have been actively'
-

r.lreld for a long tig0hhe period is rdlative alrd so there is no hafd and
first rule about thc icngrlr of thc tinre. ln R vs.silverriir< (ta9q) 2 QB 766, there
t al:a
.

dispute about thc idcntiry ol the,'h4+rtwrr.li[+df the accused. The solisitor was
ialled to
parish
testify about this identity. This solicitor hat been in thpre habit of penising in the old
hi5 ability to
ref,isters and rvills drafted by rhe various pegple. An objegtion was.raised aboui
The to,.uf
testify as a handrvriting expert since he had no formal tralning.in this.'rnatter.
stify and"Held. tirat his experielrcp in Berusing the docume-:, O.'r"]. tt
private purposes an<i partly foi his work enabled him to acquircexp.li:,".:.i:.Hj}1,"*i,
'v") Oitr
although he may nor havi had any forrnai tiaining in ihis field. -r'?-

In Uganda Vs Ntura (1977) HCB 103, theie had bein an accident.allcgeCiy caused by.an
'atcident
uzi-stb nrachine gun. Tl:re issue was whether the could h.ave been catrsed by such a
.
gun, and to establish thc ciiaracteristics olthdt gun, a police officerwas called to tbstify as air

i expertrvitrlessforsttclrguns.ltwasestai-rlishedtlratthemanhadbeenapoliceofficersincg
j policeman's
.1949 and had sonlc.training.in rhe lrandling of fite arms. Court heltl that the
I professional expcriencc couplcd rvith tiri stutly of fire arms'quali[red him t'o be dn expert.iil
J
' the a.rea o[ guns. Tlrat arr c.rpert in ordcr to be contpetellt as i1
s'ilttess need not to have

acquircd iiis l:;r,;rvlctk:,: lbrincrly tlrat it is suffrcient if he has rna'de

a speciai study of the

.subjcct oi acqutrci spcciill experiencd'

t

1.
.l
practicai
ln Ajami Vs Controller of Customs (1954) I \YLR 1045, Court observcd that
expericnce migi:t be suiircient to ciualify onc as an clpcrt'
I

f
t

In R v's' oklcy ( l9?9) 70 cri*r App 7, A polrcc rnAn was callcrl

irs il* cxpcrt rvSo haci
scrvecl in rirc rt-ra'l traflic dcllartntent tbr'l8 ycars
rvas callcd aucl he had also taken a
qtraliiving exattt itt accitlcrit i:'l'.'estigarion. It rvas
also shourn tirat lrc lracl in'estigritcil.over
'1000 c:rscs iit'io!r'ing rolc :tt''ciicnts anc it rvas lrclii that he qualified as au accident expert.
!t 'is Os,.var:g (!978t l-lC'l] 2i j

In cnthcru s/o Njagrvara v.s tt (l9s{), cr)ri.rt rrcrd..s folrorvs

t{cld I that a particular conipctetrcc of an expert should be
shown t he testitjes.
"tor"ffir
ileto z tltat cottrt lias orr several occasionS said that rvhen a trail court has to fornr an opinion
ttpon thc qtrestion rvhether a home madb gun or part'thercof
is a lctlral bowelled weapon ii
must lrave the assistancq of expe.rt opinion.'"wc think
that such speqial skill is not.onnn"a
to knorvledge acquired academically, but rvoirld. also inclua. ,titt'.*tr.i ;; il;;;,
experience' It may rvell be that in,the present circumstances,
a police <iffrcer employed on
operational or investifiarioi rvork requires a sufiicieirt particularknoivlcdgeto
nuourrn,n1 a ,
'speak as an expert on the matter but pVen so-his
iompetencli as an cxpert should in all cases.l
be his testimorly. is propcrly adurissible. In the irutant casl, the
shorvn. befoic
ofiicer.'iir.
quesiion- merely dcscribctl hinriclf as an inspector.of police
attachecl to the CiD. There was '
t.qhow.,lo
e;a4ineC h than thoie seized in the .co-r'rse of the .operatioit
rvhich led ro the appellant's irteSt., Appe.al lllowed.

Ir.r r\hnrecl vs Repubric, (r957)) EA 3-9s, the evide^qe of .a cristricr heartrr inspectgr and
strperintenCent of public rvor.ks about house. as.to whether a building rvas
sO urtsafe as to
constitute a nuisance was acceptcd. Court held that prirna- facie by virtue of their
callings,
these officers were qualified lo give
.sucli.evidence. Court explained that the rule in Gatheni
case'is one oIpractice suclr tliat.whether it is not obsenled the evidence
dcies not necess4rily
become inadrnissible. Cotrt said that tt i, ,ui. nrust bi applied more stgicrly in criminal,cases
than in civil cases.

NB. Tirosc 2 rc.;is arc thc nloSt inrporrant rtlar courr rvill apply.( s.44)
S.41 Opinio:: e.,'idcncc rvirn rcgarC to hanclwriring.

S-'lj l'':'ir'."..-'::.::':::l ri':cic ii co:ii: illts to lirrrri ait olliiriol els to ..\hc:5cr. :r rtoaunrcilt was
\r':'!licll o:'siSinc'r!. t!:e opiriiort ol'irtry person acquainted rvit[ t5e harrdr.,,ritirrg of a
iterson buy
s'itom il is supposc'J-to have.been written or signed that it uras or \t/as pot rvritten or signed

q
 .,.: t
'a

by that pe.rsoll 15 ^ rslsv:lnt lact'

I

has seen'that
.Dc
acquainted with irrc irarrdwriting oi another it'hcisrrc :
,A petson is stated ro ln
dccurnents purporting to be rvritten b,v that person
ieceive<l
person rvrite or when ire lras
and addrcsscd to that ,crsu*
or in't'c ordin.ry
.iiiswcr to.tlocu.rcr.rts writtcrr by
'inrsciI
tu us YYrrrrwtr
ting.tobewrittenbythaihavebeeillrabit'.rallybeen
purponlng'
course of business, cocuments

submitted tohim or her'

Walusimbi Vs Siar:dard Dank
t'td( l98l) HCB 67
give his
experl after establishing his expertise i3 expected to
A person who.qualifies ?Is an '
must be direct' (S.59.ILead S.59 !n its 6ntirety)'
cvidence
opiniort in persoh bccause oral

' 'V:rlue and effect of eipert evidence

'expert'gives his evidence' this is;expcctedtobeiqcorded.inadditionto|hcjreason(s}

Once an
opinion. providds that whenever'the opinion
of any'livin';lU 6 s.'
on which he bases rri, S.49
i ' i rl-^r --^l-l^a ic hrcen ere. AISO relevllt'
rhat opinion is based aie also
lEltiYdlll" ISZA
v--
is relevant, thg.grourrds qn rvhich .. ..

That bvidence of opinion

is tlicn evlly
t*t,thtrefgp the
trre court wilr accepio5
reject it'is left entirelv'to tht
ffi-i";;hether
courtis1otboundbycxpertevidence' : "' :

of s,t, there tra$,^been.entngS.

vs.R (lg6g) EA 352, the case conclned thefi
In onyango uf accuscti
Tr forgerl and cvi<ient! o:'u' to thq halcltl:i:int
nridc in a r.-rook to faciiitarc .the
.adilyrcccptedbythemagistrate.Onappeal:oul...it,,t..ltlreprincipie.

tlratwhere.expcrtopinionisgiven'tliccourtislreetogive.itsopirrionove
on record and the
be done after examining the qther e"'idence
onry
evidence but ttrat rnis
ca_n
rhen it may
if the other e.ridence supports the expert opinioh,
case. Trrat
circumstanc.es o[ the
n be relied r.lPon at ttre
discretion of the court'

I
I
L
?' , ;.
.l:':..::.lr,qatefi .'ql.-r 5criotrslv arttl irs sugh. lcss d.isEtetion slrorrltl llc allorvctl (1tivc.
lo court). Rlt ihc
:,,; .-,f i19t.thzrt tlicsu exl)erts,arc callccl.by a partic-Ular sitlc t)llty cllpfic rhqrll
.t to bc biasc6. F.lorvever
.
'jrr,'all c.1sc's,'\'ht:rc opiniorl'cviclcnce'is trccr!cd irrrtl tlrc co(rll l::rs to iilrr..ollirriq,
cipcrt.
".' er'!ir-.nce [r9^cii.irse it gi'es thc coi:r't rTroi'c r'llrrer.ial ro rvo'k r*itlr.

ivill tto.i't'lt:tll1'-Livc couii rhcir iurl:rcssiorrs ratirqr rlriru tlrcir corrsi6c.red

.".N't-;i'!-c.\i"cvl'rr-ittlt'sscs
opirrio:rs r)r coiiciirsi'ons. In Il V s. I.o:ika.(lll l) 7 .ri,u ,pp
71. rlrc cr:pr.i rlis,.:p-ssccl tirc
. '.value oI erli(enge as opg>gsgd to non expe,i evidence. The issue related
c41l.cr.t
to insanity and.
..'gcunsel' foq..the aecused applied tq call.:sonre rvilnesses.to..support
the plca of insanify.
' Arttong the rvitltesses ltc rvattted to call was'a
frienct of the accused who had been with the
.- '. accused 3 ddys bcfore the offcnge wis.committed as. rveil as the porice offrcer rvho
had .

" visitcd him at the policc cell. The issue rvas whether thly could give any qseful opinions
...abotri the.s.ta.te'of'mir:d otlthc.accused bCpaUScpone of them was an expert. Court rejected
:' both- of'thcnt ancl l{.ELI} that their cvidcnce was only in their inrfiressions aboui ttie acctrsed .

. uld lacked'exp.ert. knorvlcdge in rnattcrs o.f .iisanity.. But c.ourt observed that non-expert
;'"',witncsses nlay.assi.slrhc court vi'hen thcy'have had'a lengthy oliservation of.the accused.

.' Therc are insrahces rvljen ordindry rriiness.! wi[ be alto.ived to give their opi'ions ruliile
-'' ftey resriiy S.{5:{8. These nio.r'isions nr. .in cfflccr e.rceptions to rhe sulr r:ule ir.,o, to*
'' : ..-
cxpcl-ts ccrl ilr.,1 give.tlreir,QP.tnions'ili iour"t-.-Urtder tlris.gategory;
b.e.gi.ren as to
"ui,l.ncg.plqy
< . Jiand.r,vriting and signarures as.to gerer..qt.cusloms, rights and usages.r,o urog"s and tenets
' ot. any body of men.or.larnily..as ro the constitution and governrtrent.of auy religious or
' charitable founilation as well as'to meaning of words used by. a particular .iur, * p.opi"
under S.47 EA.

Handrvriting and.signature.sl s.45 EA

These can be proved by an ordinary witness who does not claim to be a1 expert. Evidence
oi
lay rvitnesses is ad;uissible under this part because in most cases tSere nray bc no other
evidence to establish the s'riting ci handwriting or the signarure of the person concerned.

This evidencc vvill rtonnally be of comparison i.e. the rvituess compares rvhat he knows to be
lltc i:::niiti't',ti:iq ot'tlic r:ciSon or signaturc o:' a lltrrticular pel.sol u,i16 that allcged to be of
il;i..., i._,1.:.-,'.,

Scc :l:.: casc o: \\'aiusi:trbr Vs Standard B:rirl.: Lrd ( l9l l) tlt-B 67

 i
i

".,r'...'. . : . :, Custonrs or'tights s.46 i;.

EA 'j I

.:' I

as to thP existance of :..

..r-i-.:S.16pf IJEA provides thar whcre the couil .hislto form an'cipinion
I

I
I

'.' I

:ge.neial custom'or rights.,rhe opinions as to the tjxistancc of:.that custom o-!right of persons I

.w1ro.would bc likcly to know oI it's existance, if it cxisted are relevant. The idea here is to

use rvitnesjes to ccnfirm tltat a custont or right actually exists.

' :' .Us.agesi''l'ents o[ any body o[ tncn or family s'47 '.''!

.i[.a perscn is nr posi(jcn ro I'.norv the lcnts'bi usages with in a particuiar tarnllv cr group oI
,person, he niay'be ailorvcd. to give his opiriion about them. But this shoul.d be i person from

that very family and not an outsicier

,.
Constitution of government or any ieligioiis. rir charitalile brganisations
Ordinary .witnesses rnay ,givc thcir opinions abott what a constituticjn of
a religious or

.charitable foundation ororganisation to which they belong i.e. they are able to testify about
'the T!ri; is allorved because.irl
set up; marlaggn]er1t. srrucrurc, regulatioii and its operatibn.
they
many cases sucir constitutions are unrviitten arrd wherE they are written,
are

.'supplenrcnled by ttttivrittcn coltYcrsatiol)s.

-^
' r -- -, l---
Meaning of rvords. used by.i'pa.rticular
-^-el^..|^- ^t^;.
claSs of ^arinlo
^f Pgople

. .Thesc meanlnq.s of.r,iord,s may vary from coirntf to. cor,intry. lt

therrfore becomes necessary

,. tti gerpeople irour the.l courltry to establish'tlre nieanitigs of particular rvords'aitd terms and
these'people need noi be necessarily experts in lariguages to
testify about the rneanings'
:
'S1ah a'd clhers Vs Nerv Africa PreSs Lrd ( !970) E'A 352

Opinion on relationshiPs s.48

ihe relationship of one person to
Under S.4g; vrheh.a.court has Io frirm an opinioir about
another the opinion expressed ty conduct as to the experience
of the relaiionship of any
l-. means of knorvledge on the
person rvho as a menrber of rhe fanrily or othenvise has special .
;

subject is reievzrttt.

'blOtltl rtlaiiOlts, wlti"gli-icS

ij., l.:,;,.:O:::;1.:I: rrn,iC:. li,iS Sr.C1;Or.i, ii f,tc3:r-< i:',?.iieiS Ci Ciitcfniti, trf
'5'.'
*.i:O ,:irc irl-.ii ir rrlCl,Ct :t:iii: rtlettt"-'a:'S Crt' ii',': ie:l;iii' Oi iir"lS" bc t-t>ltt:ci;eC' rvitl'' ilfC

scctlon cxprcssly
ianrii; i:ial lil,:-v t.lo\.c :1)cciir, :liror.,,icdq.c lor]r.ri i!"csc lliit'it'lis. t-ior'.'cvct'. ti':c
 I

t
i

bf prosecutions under the pcnal codc or proceedings under

bars such'opinioiis'' [bi.purposes.
the divorce.'Acti tn' Case Vs Ruguru (1970) EA 55, thc faiher o( :t girl gave evide,r., oi
cohabitatiOn betrveen the plaintiff and deflendartt rvith a'vicrv oIpfoving mar.riage exi6tance. ,

Court held thdt tire opinion of persons about rclationships as lar as mani4ge is concemed
... .

ian not oust any operative provisions of the law with regard to requiremeirts of a valid
'marriage.

.!.49 Statcs ihat; whencvci the opinioi of any living person is relevdntl the gqounds.on wlrich'
that opinion is based'are ulso rclcvant. . : .'

t.
I
I
!
I
I

I
1
i'I
I

'l opic

CTIAI1AC'TER EVIDENCE
The term ciraractef is not delincd in thc act, but is explained under S.54 to include both

{ ,r./l
 i

?epiriarionrriio,oiiooslii,.rir.Accorcingto'S'5'i'cl"aracte.revic'cn^clhorrltJ*l',t:::":::::.
'5ili no" cf parlicUiar acts by' *liich t'Cp'tation or
a reputatiol"
thc'geuei'ai: diiposiiion'arici
dispositiorr itrL assuir:eci :(
procecclings, partiiuiar
aits'o[ thc
lics in S.54 *,here in.ciiminar
The exceptiorr ro trrii
nrind' particular
to sho'w a particular state-of
complainant rha-v be adducld
accused'or t',re

motive,orwlterecharactbritsclfisinis,sueandofallinstancesirrS.52..i -nlt-'
o*ii:
the tencencv of a person to 'i i :^::1:i' :'t
act
Dispcisition means ": person..
: feters
.:, A of the,members of the public about a particular
to the opinions
Reputation' : of
.
the oprnlc rn of mernbdrs
of the public.
be an aggregarion
Reputatioir trrerefore should
The
is not.ali::t:::" there are manv eicepiiions'
,A, . g.n"rat nite, bvidence of characier case' rlature
,such evidbncc Q.epend! on a number of things e'g' haturi of the
admissibility of
ofapersoninvclvici.e.g.ir.lretheritistheacctrscdordefendantrvitnessgs..
-.).
. t
i
tg accused pers.n
chrraeter evidengc rvrth regafd 11 - t'n: *tl:ll
person is relevant; This is'in
"'-,:U,rder S:31';trlie:g6oti cltaracter of an accuscd
cffengc'
' ' :''' ' ' :r'is given undei S'5f it shouldlbe'related'rot1fie
''
': of innocensc' I[ chaiacter '":: ::
presumption
]t ']'"n
orfenc" e.c. jf the t
o: bmething ro do
;;:;";a..t,ain.,", in rcrarion !l 1!e
i:, lceusltiln

withdishodesty,theevidencethattheaclusedisanhonesrpe,s.Jnisrelevant.InYoryana
possession o'f frre arms " !
was convicted for illcgal
: -Ser,nrbn Vs Ii (195?) EA 35' the acbuled
it
, ont.orrrirtitiri. T6e horne r,race gun rvas f6und in his compound'ana_fs.ference"was'that that
Held
ancl he was not allowe<l
to call awitnes::".:t'tt:*ractei'
trad beeh planted tlieii: to'put his
retevint and admissibte if
thu accused'chose
good characrer is always
evidence of evidence of
ir iir. prosccution has been permitted to call
..rucl in particular
ch.arrcier:itr isstie

bad character'
t ; ' accused is
I
in crimindl proccedings
cf an.
j
rule is tliat bd.d cliaracter
Under S.52, the general in particular
er'v
allorvs ib:' ba'd cittrractet to be' admitted
o(ritcrur'
:tion horve'''er,
irrelevant. That sectloll w,ith indecent
rrrae.charged w'
---^^J rvas'charged
l0 COX 25' the accused
iustauce!. In R
Vs ftervton (1965)
rvhich the prosccutton
hc brorrght cvicreiice of his good character
the trial
assaurt a',1 d,ring n 1vling55 who
of ba<i character. The accuse.'hacr brought
evidence
tried to rebut by adducir,g knerv nothing
and morality and he stated that'he
accusse.,,s dcccncy
rvas askeci abo,t rhc opinion of his
accttscd but that in his opiniorr'and
sty aboutthc
abont wh{rt tirc neighbours
 I
a

."own'brQtltcrs rvlro wcrc ptitriils cit'ilic abcus'eil, thc accusecl pcrsoh rvlis iridecerrl"iiid iire iriost"
': fragialrt inr$oqality. Court hetd thaf.ilie'evidenic oibad charactei bhould iro,;bc:evidin'ie of :'
t q feru peoPle but ratlter: thc evidtncebf a ciois scction oipcoplc aiitJ'thatin tiiis it sirouid irot
. have been adrnittcd.:. : .. " j. '' ' '

. '
EXCEPTIONS UNDIiR S.5?
l'. Undqr S. 52(3) rvhich.proVides that if the accused in his evidehce in cliiet, givcs b.yidence
abou-t good character. either by's[ateprent With response to questions.nrade'to him, tre is said

(o ltave ppt. his 'gharactcr in issue and theibford his bad character cair be .adduced by
.:
piosccution. R Vs Butter wasser.

. Z..'.Undor S. 52(t ) rvere the. accuied has corh[ritted

:
or has been convicted of anothei offence
'of a sinrilar nalure. This is iir line with the-doc.trine of res gestae but belore'such evidence is

admiltcd, it must be established.that tli91o is a relationship between thc frrst crintc and lhe

.'r. .
' Under S.!2 (c) rvhlie'in. thc course his defence, thb accuied pak_es inrputations_about
f'. !f ...r. .

'thc. character 6[ ihe conrplainant ,/ ,.ghb witness for the piosecptiorr. lrr such cases, the
.r; pFosgcutiort is liee. to addtice evidence qf'bad charaittir and.as such lacks the creiibilily to
" '' " ;'.

, '' lrr Royslon.Vs R'(1953)'20'EACA 147, ihe.Appqllant was.chirged with theft, cgnSpiiacy

I .':,'and bbtaining money by f$se.preienpe,'itunng cross exarninatioh oflcertaiir witness.of-

,),

. prosecution by appellant.and in tlre.ippellant's evidence, irnputations werb nrirde involving

.the characte( of certain prosecution rvitnesses, they wbre io put before.the jury a gendral

. 'picture'that tlr'e prosecution'witneSd who had advanced money to the appellant' were not'

. above.the evading of lalv,. if it belto their advantage Cqn:.naeO ttrat the inducenrent
"nd
" .-'working on their mindi wa3 not a4y sp,ecific reputation made by the appellant,,tiut their
,. . ,
-.
'conficlence in hirri-tts a pcrsbn in touch with appcllants fronr rvhich tlrcrc nriglit'be large
prolits riot alrvays bcaring ttrt tltc investigation. Court'Held that rvherc imputation involving
character of tlie prosecution witnssses are an integral part o[ the defence, r'rithou[ rvhich the

accused can riot put tris case belbre.t!re jury fuily and s.quarely, he can not be crcss exantiued

ou his pre'.'ious crilttirtal history.

'r-,s
 - Katrve ir.nd otlre.rs V's Uganda ( 1964) EA 411

4. Urrder S.52(d) eviCenci of bail character is reievant if the accused.-qiv!! !r,i,pence against
any otheer person ehar.qed with the same oilcnce as that rvhich he is charged. R Vs Bruce
:.
arrd otltcrs. :

Murdock Vs Tayicr ( 1965) i ALLEI( 406

Ali-bin Hassan (1960) EA l2l or !71
. .j. ..'i , , ^ I

Mugo Vs R([960)EA 121 '.

i
.:.
In'R. Ys Wintlel<l (1919) 4 ALLER 144. the persorl rvai apcused of i'ndece-nt assa'.jlt of a
wema.n and hc cblied evidcnce as to.his character in relation
'.
to wofilen. PrO secution led
i r",.

evidence of his general character as being bad aird it was contended that evide{ce of his bad

,characterwasirriproperly.admittea.cou,tr.,.lda.follows;
'Ilgld l.that this. eividence .u.'as properly admitt'ed since the'acqtised had pgt his whole
qharacter. in issue when he gave evidence about his character in relati:.,1.19.
)vome.l:
ftat
there is.no such thing putting half character in issue. - ;'
- .:
aS ','
; , -..- _.

...Held 2. That i.f d nran who ii.accused chooses io put his.charactei,in .issiie, he.must take the

consequences. ' . .

I
R Vs Buiterwasser(I947) 2 ALLER 415

.1i,, },.(ax',reil Vs DPP (1918) r\C J09.lhe accuscd rvas iriciicted o[murder ota,lvlm1ir and i1
good, clean, rnb.ral life. courl
that he had iived HELD; that in.such a
.- hir.defenie, he stated 'a
. .... ., ' .':.rvhat
cdse, thc. prcisecution WaS diloweC to adduce evjdence [o show that the accused was riot

he claimed to be apd rhat he ha<i er.posed himself to the possibility of having'his:character

I

.:
questianed
.i
U t;
,;.ln Stirland Vs DPP(l944) AC 3 t5, the rules for determinin$ Uad character rvere discussed,

.. .thc accuscd was charged with forgery and he ga're evidence of his good charu.ter and.also
. .called a rvitness to show that he had never been convicted before and was very moralistic.

. Court allorved the prosecutic.,n r,o adduce evidence of his bad character by asking him

. .: -questigns relating to previous instances where he had been quesiioned in reiation to criminal

cirarges. Court hcld tirat lhc accusecl may be cross cxaminccl about anything hc says in
. cl,icf, es1:eciaii;v sc reguriiing xis clainrs abcr.ii hrs good character and the air:i for tilis is tc
 t
I
I

.- diorr" bad.eharactcr. courl wct'lt on.to state

that an accussed's previous past record can be

" put itr'ovidence bur: rhis sirouid be the wholc record of his past activiti6s. That urere sttspiciou
iliatsome one.has ever conrmi'tied a crinre is'not enough.to.ri:stabtish bad charac,.t.::
*:t
'lql enough to'disposscss thc .accuse<t person of his clainr tci, good charabter. That in
not one
establishing'a person's character, evidence of various rvitnesses shouid be adduced
person.

CH;\RACTEII EVIDBNCB lN CML CASES s'50 BA:-

. : S.50 UEA
Th.is can-either.bq tire charactcr of parties i.e. plaintiff, defendant.or rvitncss.
as to
providcs tliat ln civil ca5es, the fact that tlre clraracicr of any persgn coirceilred is such
,.na., probable' or any conduct imputed to him or her is ir.rflevanl Except in so
'
"
a_ irnprgbable 'a
'fa'rtas .' .t- t.\
thif cha.racrer appeats fiom the facts oth'erwise releYant. "
n
.:
Th€ gengral rule thcrcforc is rhat in'civil'eases, the character oi ttrs P.arties is irrelclant but if

it.appears fro-m the.fabts thai it is relevant then it witt be admitted as an atception :

-t'*..t"
cdses.qf breach of qontract tb maniafe, where the plaintiff 'claims.vrith conrpepsation'for
the' de'fendantl
such the characier of thg defendarit mdy be relevant in ordei.lo show;vhgiher
'-.. ... ' : .-:, '.r
'-iE -:
. .. ..'.
goilg his rvords. Evideuce 0f bad pharacter PaY P9
is a nersgn fihd is in rhe habii of back on .

'adduced 'qioidQnt.
to ostablish the particulai instance iif bad beiraviour was nor an
.:
.: I
' :.
may alsobe vital under S-54 which p.lwides
.Eyideiicc;of bad character 1tr111aIilt"llt:,tlt
:g.1 amotinr of darnigesTvhich ire-
ttut tt"...t,aiu.te.r of any perso.h iS suih as to affect ihe
. buel.rrrtd-.- 'r.6clii+qlis,.rqleval'rl. In tivii'ca'ses, trre character of the persgn'may,be"addticed to
- .:'-?'-.-
aw.iic.exenilitary
-help court i' niiiigarion of damages as rvelt ap !n deierminingiyherhei lo
damiges o, .y.1, purritiVE dantdge. [n'defa.rqtion Cases,
i
the character oli Person defanre<l

pay be.neiessiiry in as,sc.ssing rhe danragei arvard.ed to btrt at the same tinre,'character.may
. becorire neqesSary iii assessing darnageq to be.awarded
against the defendant'

Charrctcr of the dcfcndtnt

althouglr it may comc into issuc undcr S.54 c.g- in Proccedings
.This is noi oi.dinarily in rssuc
joined togetirer' the
grounds of cnrelty rvith adultery, if the defendants are
..ior di.,-orce ofr
very
iar.uount of ,Jaiiiages likcly ro bc.recovcrcd lioln tlrc co-adultcrcr i plaintiff nlay tlel:cnd
ihe generat iulc is that characier
niuch on the characrer of the defendant. For the defendant,
not depend o* rvherhcr that dcfendant has been convicted
of an ofttnce, rvlrat' rteeds to
may.

2*
 ,
3,
I

beestablisliec.isthebeh.aviotri.withrespcctto.cir,il.matterslnlSSLIel.....,

. : '':": have
Court:
are iSlcvunt'- "
crinrinal rtutte is tohere previous convict'idns
Tiris is cli[tercrrt'tic''ni past
on
lo accept in civil niarters the charactgr of a pers,o llsed
generalJy bien rerucrani
i
ctltri, ict t tltts
y, (!943) I KB r87
llollirrgtorr llqvthorn"tnd company :

showing
evidence of con'icti9.n ot,'
ln praciicc, iike tra!'[rc cases. ,corirts tcnd tc accept
negligence.

' Character ofrvitnesses '\ '

cases' But the natuie of our

is rlot material both in civil and criminal
Gerreraily ttris impair the
.involves competition and each sid.. sttives
to discridit i:
adversariai. gyslgm
subjecltid t9 '
other sides As a result witnesSes are m?oy times
rvitnesses'
'credibility of thc .:
are telting the o[ not'
. thorqug\ scrutiny
to- establish rvhether they lruth 1 . .. r
a witness and as such is lrelted
i1t" ttll witness'
A parry qo lirigitioii is nornral'iy iiher
mav permit il person wiro calls
t *iT!:.:''lq o"':tt:::".
Uirdei S:153 UEA, a court i*::f i'q cros's
.,,rl,,,t .-):
oihcqilrsc.be.pu( to ihat' witngq oi,tl:,rther;qlrty
witrrcis whiclf .votrld

exantinati,pn. ...,.
....

imneact
,ed bi cating *iines$ to show that
ciedibility of a witness- may be '.
I
t
.'luirder S.I54,:the ...

' ' '' ":' qisollz ALIER zfa' ' '

-t 'Reid ttrd ttrttorving'"
c'st';WaltersVs Sunday Piqtofial b{"*gptfts
' ; - -':'
Nation and
333'
.GoortyVioiatrims.preSS.(t967)IQBJJJ,rlguereq(
QB Figueredo v' Biiit;t or sunday

u
'
an acltoni irisingotiiof
collision between

I ln Hollingtoir

2 rhotor cars,.rire
Vi Hervlhorn qnd.company
plairrtiff
!!d'in
alleged negiigcnce on rhe
part of'the deierrdant ahd't'e.plainiiff
of careless
oI the trefendant on divbrse occassions
of a cohviction
sought to give evidcncc rVds
pri*cipic a.nd authority evide*ce of the con*iction
borh on
driving. court held that
inrtdlnissibie
ToPic

tllir\llSr\Y 0V lDBliC 0
who scr^+ ircard, he who
S.igprovidcsthatalioralevidencetnustbecirect.Dircctness-seen'
 a
,t

i.orq, \*g,,p,:.r..ived opiriion, lie'who rrords tirc opi*ion. s.5g'6a, ,o,r. cxccptioru iikc
Publishe.cl \Yqi.l('. quoratioits tltcse are not.hcarsay.'fhe itiea bchirid direcr.ess
is that the.best
i'
evldencg that is available is in i\ost'cascs. available. "" ' "
' 't
..: '
'i

'Thq ternr.HEARSAY is not defined in the UEA

bur S.58, 55 and 59 give all idea o[what is
allowed or not but common larv has give6 lvorking deflrnition.

Dqfinitio.n;'A lliird person's asdertion narrated to court by a.witness lor the purpose of
.establishing the.tnrth of rlrat rvhich was assened is hearsay
evidence.

'i

In.hear Say we lqok fot (ingrediepts);

i . .
. t. ita.lernent lhai may be orai oi written. . .

ras made by a p'eison who is not dow.before cburt.

:' ...:'. ..3.. Ths pUrRose o[.the statemenl is qo pr9v9 thalit ilas said.op written in the tiuth:.of.that i
statement as t[e'o.bject

+,".':
.W.h4q:iq.oral canbe heard liiiti ."itratis wr'iiien,can bq rea!.Usuatiy.,biotiq*.arises frorn.
comqnuiiicatign iirit is neithei writen nor.ora!,
T.htii; in Chander Qqtceli V5Ii (lg3l)teC:
.220. At a nr,-rrcbi tiial, there rvas'evidenie adduoid to'siroiv ih"t'he yicrjn: could not speakat
the iime of her,death (since.tlre tliroat hdcl been stii). Aut she'managed to inrlicate io the..,
people arbund thar it rvas the accuSe.( thar had- siit licr;throat by nodding'to questionr: fiig . .
;]
issues for"dqtermjrlation rveie rvherhcJ that eviderlccitseif wa5 uo'misdiut'e and whethei trr".
. conduct whlih ii not bral or rvritten is admissibte i.e. did it amount to a statement? Court
hild that evidence was'admissible as an exieptiqn to the.hearsay rule ind in particular dS a

dying .dectaralioit. Court .observed that the',cbnduct may at limes be a niode of

:1
'coinmuniczitiqn nnd could'be'hearsay.or could. be.ctir.ect in which ca'se it Wouid be
adrnissible.

A person not bcfor'e tire'court

Sucir a statclltcllt nray include those of parties to a case ciut side court. There wrll be hearsay

. to be admitred. They should be put on record and saicl during proceedings.

if tlre inicntion is to cstablisn ti:e rruth of the earlier siatenrent. lri

Statemctrt is hcar.say r.rniy
, Supra }linirrinr Vs L)PP.(1956) I \\'1.,R 965, the accused rvas chargecl s,ith illlgal
possession of fire arnts. <lciertcc said that hc hacl been forced to keep the fire arms by the
 It'
t
- t:
.rtbitj. T.he triiri jt,<ise tejecieri this' ' : '
uciir3 ir.r sirorv t'rrat rhere.rvas force by rebers:
!
.irren
The
it i't iS for tire I
I

er,.idencr-'irs..irenrsay. O^ arrPc:ti cottt't -sa.irl tlrat evidence is Otllf ircttrsti;; ' I

I
I

r',aS'spoken arrd it is'not heal say'ii ii ls;aCduced in '' I

I

. o[ pro'iiig liic.li,-rtit b!'.rvhar

I

pt:r'posti
1
I
:
''
maCe'
I

trying to cstablish that thc staicment rvtis

I

:
i
and
that rhe accused had thiorvnS stone
In R vs Gibson (1g37) 1g QB 537, ir was'alleged
that
. had wotlnded the compiainant. The prgsecution.adduced evidence to'say immediately
' the plaintiff.rvaq lrit by a stone a woman rvho was passing by pointecl at the holle of the
gone inside there' The accused
defendant and said thai the person who threvr the stone was
evidence attiibuted woman
was anested tried and convicted..On'appeal the-reaSon.for 1oith9
because
. was hearsay because she was not called.to
testify: court heid that this was hear'say

hearsay right from the beginnihg of the

t.rial qpt i: lh.:,
T'e couri ha-s.gor lro.r.rrlro cxcludc l:
rrds onCe there is
avoidhearsay ffom'going.on::to'-.'"'"..
duty of the parties to raiss objections't6 ., :
.:64: ttre r,vas said
:o expunBg it, ln Sparke Ys R (1969) AC
dirrqult :n.1.,"'.
jrrd *:1
1c1saa
' .
indee'extlv':t''
q
ad.!1ea a y-ear,girl. The girl afte,
immediately ran tqihgrirnother'
: r,qrcsiiry bur th.i
' ;,;:t:, ;i;;' -a.nd
I ' to adduce tSis evidqncg. The {iifence objectLd 'cour1 up $eif the,
mother aite*rprgd
objeciion

i,ir:zl es
rviil be cxcludcd even it il tras l trieb erl-a;ntrar
valu;.^l:
Hearsay
l:t::_tj::
calfedlas a ivitness'had icpnlgsse{. litlia
Crini app ?8, a,llrird partl who cin not be
w1.g beinB tried. The court
this ilidence'
commitied a crinc for which ttre accused
lerec]ed
'' '' '; ' '
and said this was hearsaY'

I Rcasohs whY hearsaY is reiectetl

I
t becausg he is
that thc pcfsoil inaking the statement can not be cross'eit\r,ined
l. lt is argued
the aicuracy of the statcment'
available ancl so you can not deternrine
so tlre evidonce nray be
2. The likclihood of distortion of'the original message words etc

trviitcd to [ilr'cul'trne sidc'

3. The court is not giverr the
made the Statement e.g. tone,
wiLness' the person $'ho
opportunity to judge the demeanour the
effect by cOurt
voice, condtrct e't'c no observation made to that

Cepending on tienteanour'
1
7
tt

4. it'yotr ailorv hcarsay. there will be'lac,k oi opportunity to judge the pioncers of perception
nade the statement.

5. It rnay itoi o-ee possibic to cstabiish the'ictual rneaning of rvords',jecause'the third party oi
person may have used those rvords in a special'sense artd the one reporting them may asqrite

a wrong meanirtg tU'thosc words.

6. There is likelhoosl ol'liaving lengihy (protracted) litigatiori b€cause' ilrere.is no'limif as to

whatisadnritiedornot. ..' ,' "' ""."

7. The element of 'surpri'se. Unfairly surprise the other side to keep bringin! is5ucs, that

dependonrvhattheothgrpeIsonsaid(unfiiir[ydisadvantagedtothebtlterside)I.nspiteoF
rho'se reasons,.thar;usi!fy eiciuqion oThearsay, instahces arise where ir is exclusioii ivoy$. .

lead'to ilrjusrice..This arises in situatioRs were no substitutiorl to hcarsay. or to exclirde ii ,

''
wgulddefeat the ends -1ijus1ic9...potnnfdn larv developed exceptionai atrcl lrc rJ.o1.c-odified
'in UEA. S.30'...ivhich gengially.provides'that statements which are'rrri,,"n or verb{ :
... !!
relevant fdqts bi a p.rion wlto is dead oi ivhe can noi'be found'or vtro'has beconie incap'hbfe ,

o[' givirig evidi:nce or')vhosQ attendance can not be proctlrgd withbut .ulddc
.:..'

_ Tlr'e section itien cirbums.taiicgs.yhgn thby are relevait (exceptiqns to he'a*iy eviabsiro; '
'i_ists
l, Under S.30 EA stalginints uihigtr are written or oral qf r'elevar.t facii by a-person rylio il,
4eacl, concemi ig itre p:rrise b'f death or circu.rn.stances relating. to hiS aeaitr iviih itirrt.aQt; it'is '
' :. : '.. :'
.iiirmaterial thar'.thi ,pe.ison whs- at tmntddiitely exception of death rvhen'thel .made tlol:
sratements. Thei;e
'1rc 'iqferred
to as dyiilg d'eclarations. i . .'
''
'' '. ' , ''
',. :

:. D$ngdeclaratio.ns .r.,.
.: ::.
A dying declarziiiqn is d.st4t€ment uttei'ed by the dei.eased persoh the fuipose of whiCh is to
esrablish the calbc oF.dEath o[ that person. This exception is grdundLO]ort thc'beilof that if a '

person is about:to die they are likely to telt the truth. Thcre are distinctions bctrvecu dying
:

cleclirration.*itliir common larv and it thc UEn

:-

i. Under ccimnibn la\r,, a'dyirig declaration is rvhere a Dersou makihg it iS under a hopelgss

crpcctation ol"ililtlr rvhiih is ntit lhe Lase under the UEA.

ii. Upder co,1uir.'rn ltrv. tliesc tlcclarations are drtl,v atJr,rissible rvhere the nrirtter'involved
murdcr o1. ,ra,iiia,,gl'rrcr. Untlcr the UEA it is aclmissibie under all circtrutstdilces s0long as
!

tl'ie issue is about dcrtir.

 ,,)
I
"G-

.: Eten:ents cjf :in irlniisSible dying cleclaratibn' ' .' '.

-l'[crt. slate ltlct'lt ntusi re'!aie

i. slror.rltl bc.prooI ot'dcath oi- thc rniittcr oI thc statQnrcnt and that

to the causc tlcatli or circt,,nstanccs i;t ivhich ti:e pcrson dier!. I

-ibc
ii. s(atcnrent nrust Lrr: coprpietc i-e. tire deceased should say what ire ivpulC have all

wrnted to say. In Waugh Vs R (l950jA.C ZOf , the statement was'incomplete.and rvas hcid
irot to-be a dying declhration, Thc'deciased rvas shot by the appellant; the dcaeased belore
by ...... and bicause............'.. j '
deaih he said; I have bcen shor

iii. It muit be a frce expression of rhe .decea.sed i.e ho voluntarily makes the Siatement. No
teading questions and il it is reiordid, the aclult wg1ds should be record(d other than
words.'
trarislatiort of 1

iv. Neecl foic6rroboration. )..

90 '
R VS Eligu and anothe( i943) l0 ECA . ' ' "

In Jasunga Ys R (1154) 2t iiACA 331, Court held that theie is no ruie qfllaW itrat is io
.t

suppqrt a dying is.Se'nuailf very unsafe to base'a convictiqn qolgly on afr ;

declaration Uui i.t

unconoborated dying decl.arati6n. Thg brief facts ivete that thd appellant was. convicted bn a
count of murder of JM.:e.iP gave evidgnCe that on the fat9fut day'saw.JM,'on road with a
:.rvountl o1 his i!'res.t tlrat ire asked'him *ho him to )utrich hc rcp.lied.that BJ had'
injurb.d.

iM tvay oi"
srabbcd hirrr..lrr lrosprral lirrer rriride !.statement to an pssistao.t superiht.iO.nt Uy -

answer to'questions pur to hirrr and.ltre statement'Wa! iecor<!ed ryere react bQc!'tq hirrr
and.

the strrtenrent bui he did not sigu it. Thtire rvas virtually no corroboration of Jlv['S statement:
The.triirljutlgc pointcd out to.the fact tltat the appellant was not'present when the staternent
wirs. made. Court.held it is.desirable.to recor<lr'rvhere possible'thc actual
lvords of the

, declarant of a. dying sratenlent and wher:e questions are askerl, both questions and answers.

and accused quiet).

:(deals with corroboration being found.in the condr:ct of ihe accused

In Mibinga Vs Uganda (1965) EA 71, the appeliant was convicted of ntanslaughtcr basing
cvidence ol rcpcated sratcri'ient made by the dcceased to scverai pcoplc soorl aftdr
lie was
on

discovered lying irrjiired that il was the aopellant rvho-had beatcn hi.m. Tirc chief iustice

considcred carefully circumstances under rvhich the statemcnts wcrc rna<ie and lookeci lor

corroboraliol ri,lrich hc founcl in the conduct cf the appcllant. [{c rvas accuseci by the