Uganda Case Law

Rex v Akope and Another

Rex v Akope and Another (Criminal Appeals Nos. 115 and 116 of 1947) [1947] EACA 39 (1 January 1947)

Court

East African Court of Appeal

Case number

Criminal Appeals Nos. 115 and 116 of 1947

Judge

Edwards CJ, Graham Paul CJ, Nihill P

The Court held that the appellants' belief that the deceased had caused their relative's death by witchcraft could not reduce the crime from murder to manslaughter. The provocation was not sudden, as the appellants had believed for several days that the deceased was bewitching their relative. Furthermore, the belief in witchcraft was not based on any physical act by the deceased in the presence of the appellants, but rather on a metaphysical suspicion. The law requires that provocation be both sudden and based on a wrongful act or insult done in the presence of the accused or their close rela…

Source excerpt

• Provocation
• Witchcraft Defence
• Manslaughter
• Murder
• Suddenness Requirement
• Reasonable Belief

Rex v Kinene and Others

Rex v Kinene and Others (Criminal Appeals Nos. 170, 171 and 172 of 1941) [1941] EACA 96 (1 January 1941)

Court

East African Court of Appeal

Case number

Criminal Appeals Nos. 170, 171 and 172 of 1941

Judge

Sheridan, (C.J. Kenya), Webb CJ, Wilson J

The Court of Appeal found that the appellants, upon discovering the deceased crawling naked in their compound, acted under grave and sudden provocation, genuinely believing he was practising witchcraft against them. The evidence did not support a premeditated intention to kill in revenge for past acts, but rather an immediate response to provocative conduct. The Court clarified that belief in witchcraft alone does not excuse killing, but where the accused is provoked by an act reasonably believed to be witchcraft, and acts in the heat of passion, the defence of provocation may apply. The conf…

Source excerpt

• Homicide
• Manslaughter
• Provocation
• Confession Evidence
• Witchcraft Defence

Rex v Machoka

Rex v Machoka (Criminal Appeal No. 174 of 1940) [1940] EACA 25 (1 January 1940)

Court

East African Court of Appeal

Case number

Criminal Appeal No. 174 of 1940

Judge

Lucie-Smith, J. (Kenya), Sheridan CJ, Whitley CJ

The court held that an improperly certified statutory statement could still be admitted when the magistrate testified it complied with section 219. The appeal was dismissed.

• Admissibility Of Evidence
• Statutory Statement Certification
• Procedural Compliance
• Mitigating Circumstances
• Witchcraft Defence
• Criminal-evidence

Rex v Mawalwa

Rex v Mawalwa (Criminal Appeal No. 81 of 1940) [1940] EACA 19 (1 January 1940)

Court

East African Court of Appeal

Case number

Criminal Appeal No. 81 of 1940

Judge

Cluer J, Whitley CJ, Wilson J

The Court of Appeal for Eastern Africa upheld a murder conviction, holding that belief in witchcraft did not amount to grave and sudden provocation on these facts.

• Murder
• Provocation
• Witchcraft Defence
• Criminal-law
• Witchcraft

Rex v Mursoi (Craiminal Appeal No. 60 OF 1939)

Rex v Mursoi (Craiminal Appeal No. 60 OF 1939) [1939] EACA 117 (1 January 1939)

Court

East African Court of Appeal

Case number

Craiminal Appeal No. 60 OF 1939

Judge

Dalton, C.J(Tanganyika), Sheridan, (C.J. Kenya), Whitley CJ

The court held that the defence of belief in witchcraft as a justification for murder has consistently been rejected, except in cases where the accused is put in such fear of immediate danger to his own life that grave and sudden provocation is established. In this case, the appellant's belief that the deceased was a wizard who had laid a spell on his child did not meet the threshold for grave and sudden provocation. Therefore, the conviction for murder was upheld and the appeal dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Murder
• Provocation
• Witchcraft Defence

Rex v Mulumbi and Others (Cr. A15ps. 31 to 100/1932.)

Rex v Mulumbi and Others (Cr. A15ps. 31 to 100/1932.) [1932] EACA 27 (1 January 1932)

Court

East African Court of Appeal

Case number

Cr. A15ps. 31 to 100/1932.

Judge

Griffin C.J. (Uganda),, Law, J. (Uganda), Sheridan, C.J. (Tanganyika)

The court held that the collective beating of the deceased by seventy individuals, even with thin sticks, demonstrated knowledge that their actions would probably cause death or grievous harm, thus satisfying the requirement of malice aforethought for murder under the Penal Code. The appellants' belief in witchcraft and invocation of native custom could not excuse or reduce their liability, as such beliefs are not recognized as defences to homicide unless there is immediate danger to life amounting to grave and sudden provocation. The court affirmed that the law does not tolerate the killing…

Source excerpt

• Murder
• Malice Aforethought
• Witchcraft Defence
• Native Custom
• Provocation
• Mens Rea