Uganda Case Law

Arvind Patel v Uganda

Arvind Patel v Uganda [2003] UGSC 35 (26 October 2003)

Court

Supreme Court of Uganda

The Supreme Court held that section 142(1) of the Magistrates Courts Act does not restrict the number of magistrates who may preside over a trial, provided the accused is not prejudiced and has the opportunity to request witnesses to be recalled. The interpretation in Eustance v Rep. (1970) EA 393 was found to be too narrow and not applicable to Ugandan law. The Court further held that the plea of guilty by a co-accused should not be taken as evidence against another accused in a conspiracy charge, as criminal responsibility is personal. However, in this case, the trial magistrate did not rel…

Source excerpt

• Conspiracy To Murder
• Magistrates Courts Act Interpretation
• Joint Trial Procedure
• Plea Of Guilty Effect
• Burden Of Proof
• Prejudice And Misdirection

Msenga v Reginam

Msenga v Reginam (Criminal Appeal No. 123 of 1956) [1950] EACA 553 (1 January 1950)

Court

East African Court of Appeal

Case number

Criminal Appeal No. 123 of 1956

Judge

Briggs, JA, Sinclair, VP, Worley, P

The East African Court of Appeal held that denying a jointly charged accused the chance to cross-examine a co-accused was a fatal procedural defect on the first count.

• Right To Cross Examination
• Joint Trial Procedure
• Miscarriage Of Justice
• Adverse Party Evidence
• Right-to-cross-examination
• Joint-trial-procedure

Rex v Ekolit, Ochole, Wakotum and Achoket

Rex v Ekolit, Ochole, Wakotum and Achoket (Criminal Appeals Nos. 304, 305, 306 and 307 of 1947) [1948] EACA 18 (1 January 1948)

Court

East African Court of Appeal

Case number

Criminal Appeals Nos. 304, 305, 306 and 307 of 1947

Judge

Bourke J, Graham Paul CJ, Nihill P

The East African Court of Appeal upheld murder convictions arising from a joint fatal beating, and stated the better practice on joint accused evidence order.

• Joint Trial Procedure
• Murder Vs Manslaughter
• Evidence Of Children
• Medical Evidence In Homicide
• Intention In Murder
• Procedural Irregularity

Rex v Kadzanja and Another (Cr. App. Nos. 144 and 145/1935.)

Rex v Kadzanja and Another (Cr. App. Nos. 144 and 145/1935.) [1936] EACA 34 (1 January 1936)

Court

East African Court of Appeal

Case number

Cr. App. Nos. 144 and 145/1935.

Judge

Abrahamas, C.J. (Tanganyika), Hall, C.J. (Uganda), Horne J, Sheridan CJ, Webb, J

The Court held that the trial of the appellants was a nullity because, although separate informations were filed against each accused in respect of the same offence, all were tried together. This procedural defect is fatal under the applicable Criminal Procedure Code, as interpreted in authoritative case law, including Crane v. Director of Public Prosecutions and R. v. Dennis and Parker. The Court followed its previous decision in R. v. Kristofa Male, which established that such a trial is invalid and convictions must be set aside. The law in Nyasaland, Uganda, Kenya, and Tanganyika is identi…

Source excerpt

• Joint Trial Procedure
• Separate Informations
• Nullity Of Proceedings