Share
Rex v Poki (Cr. App. No. 68/1939) [1939] EACA 132 (1 January 1939)
- Citation
- [1939] EACA 132
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- East African Court of Appeal
- Panel
- Law, C.J (Zanzibar), Sheridan, (C.J. Kenya), Whitley CJ
- Case number
- Cr. App. No. 68/1939
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- East African Court of Appeal
- Panel
- Law, C.J (Zanzibar), Sheridan, (C.J. Kenya), Whitley CJ
- Case number
- Cr. App. No. 68/1939
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The Court held that the sketch plan made by the police officer should not have been received in evidence because there was no testimony from Erinesti, who pointed out the locations, or from any other person acquainted with the places referred to in the plan. The absence of such evidence undermines the reliability and admissibility of the sketch plan, as the connection between the plan and the actual locations was not properly established through direct testimony. This principle safeguards the integrity of evidence by ensuring that exhibits are properly authenticated by witnesses with firsthand knowledge.
Court disposition
Appeal allowed in part; court clarifies evidentiary requirements.
Orders
- The sketch plan should not have been received in evidence in the absence of testimony from Erinesti or another knowledgeable person.
02
Material facts
Parties
Paulo Poki
AppellantRex
Respondent Counsel: McKisack03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether a sketch plan made by a police officer can be admitted in evidence without testimony from the person who pointed out the relevant locations.
- 02
Whether the absence of evidence from Erinesti or another knowledgeable person affects the admissibility of the sketch plan.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The appellant was absent and unrepresented; no arguments were presented on his behalf.
- Respondent
- The Crown, represented by McKisack, did not contest the admissibility of the sketch plan but the court observed the procedural deficiency regarding its admission.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Court's judgment, referencing general principles of evidence law.
A sketch plan should not be admitted in evidence unless a person acquainted with the places referred to in the plan testifies that he pointed out those places to the maker of the plan.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The Court held that the sketch plan made by the police officer should not have been received in evidence because there was no testimony from Erinesti, who pointed out the locations, or from any other person acquainted with the places referred to in the plan. The absence of such evidence undermines the reliability and admissibility of the sketch plan, as the connection between the plan and the actual locations was not properly established through direct testimony. This principle safeguards the integrity of evidence by ensuring that exhibits are properly authenticated by witnesses with firsthand knowledge.
Obiter and limits
- Though nothing of importance turns on the plan produced by Mr. Sharpe, the court observes that in the absence of evidence by Erinesti or some other person acquainted with the places referred to in the plan, that he had pointed out these places to Mr. Sharpe, the plan should not have been received in evidence.
Court disposition
Appeal allowed in part; court clarifies evidentiary requirements.
- The sketch plan should not have been received in evidence in the absence of testimony from Erinesti or another knowledgeable person.
Source and reliance status
East African Court of Appeal
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
East African Court of Appeal
Judgment
COURT OF APPEAL FOR EASTERN AFRICA
Before Sir Joseph Sheridan, C. J. (Kenya); Whitley, C. J. (Uganda); and Sir Charles Law, C. J. (Zanzibar)
REX, Respondent (Original Prosecutor)
v
PAULO POKI, Appellant (Original Accused)
Cr. App. No. 68/1939
(Appeal from decision of High Court of Uganda) Evidence—Admissibility of sketch plan.
S a police officer gave evidence that the house of the accused had been pointed out to him by one Erinesti and a sketch plan was made of the house and its environs by S and put in evidence. Erinesti did not give evidence.
Held (24-7-39).—That the sketch plan should not have been received in evidence in the absence of the evidence by Erinesti or some person acquainted with<br>the places referred to in the plan that he had pointed out those places to S.
Appellant absent unrepresented.
McKisack, Crown Counsel, for the Crown.
The following is an excerpt from the judgment (delivered by WHITLEY, C. J.) .- "Though nothing of importance turns on the plan produced by Mr. Sharpe, we would observe that in the absence of evidence by Erinesti or some other person acquainted with the places referred to in the plan, that he had pointed out these places to Mr. Sharpe, the plan should not have been received in evidence."
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.