Nkula Moses v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No.62 of 2008) (Criminal Appeal No. 62 of 2008) [2009] UGCA 31 (17 August 2009)
Court
Court of Appeal of Uganda
Case number
Criminal Appeal No. 62 of 2008
The Court of Appeal upheld a manslaughter conviction, finding the dying declaration was properly relied on and corroborated by the appellant's admission.
Gichinga v Regina (Criminal Appeal No. 738 of 1951) [1952] EACA 319 (1 January 1952)
Court
East African Court of Appeal
Case number
Criminal Appeal No. 738 of 1951
Judge
De Lestang J, Windham J
The court held that the appellant’s guilty plea to arson was not unequivocal because the facts did not clearly show the burning was unlawful. Conviction quashed and retrial ordered.
Rex v Owori (Criminal Appeal No. 11 of 1947) [1947] EACA 13 (1 January 1947)
Court
East African Court of Appeal
Case number
Criminal Appeal No. 11 of 1947
Judge
Graham Paul CJ, Sheridan CJ, Thacker J
The Court found that while the appellant knowingly placed a grenade in a manner that caused an explosion, there was insufficient evidence to prove he intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm. The absence of motive and the appellant's state of intoxication, combined with his lack of special knowledge about grenades, led the Court to conclude that malice aforethought was not established. However, the act of causing an explosion in the eaves of a house was manifestly unlawful, and the resulting death of Akumu rendered the appellant guilty of manslaughter under Section 192 of the Uganda Pe…
Rex v Fumbirwa and Another (Cr.A. Nos. 148 and 149 of 1936.) [1936] EACA 114 (1 January 1936)
Court
East African Court of Appeal
Case number
Cr.A. Nos. 148 and 149 of 1936.
Judge
Dalton, C.J(Tanganyika), Hearne, J (Tanganyika), Sheridan CJ
The Court held that, under Ugandan law, manslaughter is constituted by an unlawful act or omission causing death, regardless of intention to cause death. The appellants' act of hanging the woman, even if done under the honest and reasonable belief that she was already dead, was an unlawful act because it was done with the intent to fabricate evidence and mislead a tribunal, as contemplated by section 84 of the Penal Code. The trial judge was justified in inferring such intent from the circumstances. The Indian law on culpable homicide, which requires intention, was found inapplicable. The Cou…