Share
Rex v Rwakaikara (Cr. App. 39/1931.) [1931] EACA 15 (1 January 1931)
- Citation
- [1931] EACA 15
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- East African Court of Appeal
- Panel
- Barth, C.J (Kenya), Griffin C.J. (Uganda), Pickering, C.J. (Zanzibar)
- Case number
- Cr. App. 39/1931.
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- East African Court of Appeal
- Panel
- Barth, C.J (Kenya), Griffin C.J. (Uganda), Pickering, C.J. (Zanzibar)
- Case number
- Cr. App. 39/1931.
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court held that the evidence regarding the complaint by the prosecutrix to Mr. Younger was inadmissible because it was made six days after the event and was not presented by stating what the prosecutrix said, but rather by producing a document. However, the remaining evidence was found to support the trial judge's finding of fact and the conviction for indecent assault under section 110 of the Penal Code. The appeal was dismissed as the conviction was upheld on the basis of admissible evidence.
Court disposition
appeal_dismissed
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed.
02
Material facts
Parties
Rwakaikara
Appellant Counsel: Rwakaikara (in person)Rex
Respondent Counsel: Reece, Crown Counsel (for Attorney-General, Uganda)03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the complaint made by the prosecutrix was admissible in evidence in the manner presented.
- 02
Whether the conviction for indecent assault under section 110 of the Penal Code was supported by the evidence.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The appellant denied his guilt and argued that the prosecutrix was lying. He challenged the admissibility of the complaint evidence, contending that it was improperly presented as a document rather than through oral testimony of what was said.
- Respondent
- The Crown, represented by Reece, relied on the evidence recorded and referred to authoritative texts, including Russel on Crimes, to support the conviction and the admissibility of the complaint as presented.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Russel on Crimes, Vol. 1, p. 906, 8th Edition
A complaint made by a prosecutrix should be proved by stating what she said, not by producing a document in which the complaint was recorded.
- 02
Court's judgment
Evidence of a complaint made several days after the event is inadmissible if not presented in the correct manner.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court held that the evidence regarding the complaint by the prosecutrix to Mr. Younger was inadmissible because it was made six days after the event and was not presented by stating what the prosecutrix said, but rather by producing a document. However, the remaining evidence was found to support the trial judge's finding of fact and the conviction for indecent assault under section 110 of the Penal Code. The appeal was dismissed as the conviction was upheld on the basis of admissible evidence.
Obiter and limits
- The proper method of proving a complaint is by oral testimony of what was said, not by documentary evidence of the complaint.
- A complaint made several days after the alleged event carries less evidentiary weight and must be presented correctly to be admissible.
Court disposition
appeal_dismissed
- The appeal is dismissed.
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 JACOB BARTH, C. J. (Kenya); SIR CHARLES GRIFFIN, C. J. (Uganda), and PICKERING, C. J. (Zanzibar).
REX
(Respondent) (Original Prosecutor)
RWAKAIKARA
(Appellant) (Original Accused).
Cr. App. 39/1931.
Law of Evidence-subsequent conduct when relevant.
Held (9-3-31):—That a complaint made by a prosecutrix should be<br>proved by stating what she said, and not by the production of a<br>document in which it was alleged the complaint had been recorded.
Appellant in person.
Reece, Crown Counsel (for Attorney-General, Uganda) for Crown.
This was an appeal from a conviction in Criminal Case No. 6 of 1931 of the High Court of Uganda.
The Superintendent, C. I. D., had given evidence to the following effect—"I arrived at Fort Portal on 31st October, 1930, and took full statement from her (prosecutrix) on the same I filed her formal complaint on 1st November, 1930 (Ex. 4). day. I have her statement here. It is this ( $Ex. 5$ )."
The appellant having been charged in the first instance with attempted rape was convicted of indecent assault under section 110 of the Penal Code.
Appellant makes statement denying his guilt.
Reece refers to Russel on Crimes, Vol. 1, p. 906, 8th Edition.
Appellant.—The woman was lying.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Sir Jacob Barth.
JUDGMENT.—The evidence in our opinion supports the finding of fact by the learned trial Judge and the conviction.
The evidence regarding the complaint by the prosecutrix to Mr. Younger is in our view inadmissible. It was made some six days after the event and was not given in the correct way, which should have been by stating what she said and not by the production of a document in which it was alleged the complaint was recorded.
The appeal is dismissed.
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.