Uganda v Kobshusheshe Kareveri (Crim.Csc.No.56 of 2007) (Crim.Csc.No.56 of 2007) [2008] UGHC 137 (1 September 2008)
Court
High Court of Uganda
Case number
Crim.Csc.No.56 of 2007
The High Court held that a charge and caution statement was voluntarily made and could be admitted, rejecting claims of assault, threats, and coercion.
Oketch David v Uganda [2003] UGSC 17 (17 April 2003)
Court
Supreme Court of Uganda
The Supreme Court of Uganda upheld David Oketch’s conviction, holding that his confession was voluntary and that minor inconsistencies in testimony did not undermine the case.
Ssegonja Paul v Uganda [2002] UGSC 10 (10 January 2002)
Court
Supreme Court of Uganda
The Supreme Court held that the appellant's confession was properly admitted as voluntary, with sufficient time having elapsed between the alleged torture and the making of the statement. The procedure of recording the confession in English through an interpreter was not prejudicial, as the statement was read back and signed. The evidence of recent possession of the stolen car by the appellant, corroborated by police testimony, was sufficient to sustain the conviction. Minor discrepancies between the confession and prosecution evidence did not affect the substance or truth of the confession.…
Turahi Mugambe & anoer v Uganda (Cr..Appeal No.48 of 1998) [2001] UGCA 4 (24 May 2001)
Court
Court of Appeal of Uganda
Case number
Cr..Appeal No.48 of 1998
The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge misdirected himself by admitting the confessions based on their relevance rather than first making a specific finding on their voluntariness, as required by Section 25 of the Evidence Act. The judge failed to properly analyse the conflicting evidence regarding allegations of torture and did not provide adequate reasoning for finding the confessions voluntary. The weighing scale found in the first appellant's house was not sufficiently identified as the stolen property, and the possibility that it was planted or brought by someone else was not exc…
Uganda v Isoke (Criminal Session Case 190 of 1992) [1993] UGHC 84 (21 December 1993)
Court
High Court of Uganda
Case number
Criminal Session Case 190 of 1992
Judge
Kireju, J
The High Court held that the accused’s cautioned statement was voluntary and properly recorded, and admitted it in evidence despite his claim of coercion.
Ali and Another v The Queen (Criminal Appeal No. 201 of 1956; Criminal Appeal No. 202 of 1956) [1956] EACA 20 (1 January 1956)
Court
East African Court of Appeal
Case number
Criminal Appeal No. 201 of 1956 ; Criminal Appeal No. 202 of 1956
Judge
Forbes J, Rudd J
The court held that extra-judicial statements cannot be admitted before asking the accused whether they object to admissibility and, if disputed, trying voluntariness first.
Ajwang v Rex (Criminal Appeal No. 129 of 1951) [1951] EACA 251 (1 January 1951)
Court
East African Court of Appeal
Case number
Criminal Appeal No. 129 of 1951
Judge
Lockhart-Smith, J, Nihill P, Worley VP
The court held that a confession’s voluntariness must be determined after hearing both sides, but the improper admission of the statement did not overturn the murder conviction.
Rex v Mulindwa (Criminal Appeal No. 143 of 1949) [1949] EACA 41 (1 January 1949)
Court
East African Court of Appeal
Case number
Criminal Appeal No. 143 of 1949
Judge
Graham Paul CJ, Gray CJ, Nihill, C.J
The Court of Appeal for Eastern Africa upheld a murder conviction, addressing the admissibility and voluntariness of confessions and the effect of the Judges' Rules.
Rex v Kasule and Others (Criminal Appeals Nos. 184, 185 and 186 of 1948 (Consolidated)) [1948] EACA 48 (1 January 1948)
Court
East African Court of Appeal
Case number
Criminal Appeals Nos. 184, 185 and 186 of 1948 (Consolidated)
Judge
Blood J, Edwards CJ, Nihill P
The Court of Appeal held that the statements made by the first and third appellants to the gombolola chief were not voluntary and should not have been admitted in evidence. The Court reasoned that the circumstances—being brought bound before a person in authority and being told 'Tell me how you killed your father'—amounted to a peremptory order, not a mere request, and would lead an accused to believe he was compelled to speak. The absence of a caution and the trial judge's own finding that the accused probably did not consider he could remain silent further supported the conclusion that the…