LAW OF EVIDENCE LLB III CASES - Ugandan On Confessions - AYEBARE BRUNO JR - LEGAL

LDC TERM ONE: CRIMINAL
PROCEEDINGS WORKSHOPS
/QUESTIONS
CASES ON CONFESSIONS
Uganda V Mutahanzo
The accused was indicted for murder. Together with eth deceased, they had
been drinking waragi and on their way home engaged in an argument when
eth accused asked the deceased to give him some waragi but the deceased
refused. During the ensuing scuffle, the accused stabbed the deceased and
when apprehended, made a confession and court held that a confession
connotes an unequivocal admission of having committed ab act which in law
amounts to a crime and at any rate admits the facts which substantially
constitute the offence.
Wasswa and anor V Uganda
It was held that a confession made to a police officer under the rank of
inspector was inadmissible as contravening section 23 of the evidence Act.
R V Okello
The appellant intended to have sex with a woman and after negotiations
agreed and identified a place with good grass. Instead of lying down, the
woman who wore a grass necklace instead clung to a tree at which point the
http://ayebarebruno.blogspot.com/2015/09/law-of-evidence-llb-iii-cases-notes-on.html?view=sidebar 11/16/19, 8:55 PM

Page 1 of 6
accused tried to pull her down and she fell down and died. When he was
arrested, he was told by the authorities, "confess and your punishment will be
light". He then confessed and the confession was used against him at the trial.
On appeal, it was held that the confession was inadmissible because it was
made by way of inducement and advantage of a temporal nature offered by a
person in authority.
Mwange s/o Njoroge V R
The appellant was convicted of unlawful possession of home made fire arm.
The police officer who interrogated him didn't caution him and kept
questioning every fifteen minutes, "you had better think whether you are
going to tell me or not." It was held that these words constituted a threat and
would render inadmissible any confession got thereafter.
Arikanjero Dau V R
A six year old girl was left by her mother with the appellant and she
disappeared. Her body was found the following day in a river. Medical
evidence showed that she had been sexually assaulted prior to the death. The
appellant was arrested taken to the river and asked by eth police officer to
pint out where he had pushed the deceased into the river and he did so. The
following day, the police officer said to the accused, the following words, "you
are going to tell me what you said yesterday but I am not going to force you to
do so." It was held that the above words did not constitute an order or threat
to the mind of the appellant as they were tampered by the words that
followed and any threat they might have caused to the appellant was
dissipated by the words of caution that followed.
R V Zaveckas

Page 2 of 6
The defendant was charged with theft of a coin box form a telephone both.
Before the trail, he asked the police officer, "If I make a statement will you give
m bail now?" the police officer replied in eth affirmative and the defendant
made a written confession on the basis on which he was later convicted. On
whether that amounted to inducement by a person in authority, it was held
that it made no difference that the defendant and not the police office had
raised the question of bail but the statement was made as a result of an
inducement by a person in authority.
Ibrahim V King
The appellant was charged with murder. At the trial, evidence of an officer in
command was admitted that ten to fifteen after the murder he had said to the
appellant who was then in custody, "why have you done such a senseless act?"
a question to which he replied, "some three or four days, he has been abusing
me, without doubt, I killed him". The issue was whether this confession was
voluntary. It was held that the confession was voluntary statement in the
sense that it was not made in the fear or prejudice or hope of advantage. The
law is that court ahs the discretion and it bears the duty to determine
whether an influence has been fully removed. Court looks at the
circumstances of each case and the nature of the case, the person being
threatened to determine whether section 25m will apply.
Bagaga V Uganda
The appellant appealed against a conviction for murder on grounds that his
confession was involuntary. It was contended on his behalf that he had been
tortured by the police and that he had been in custody for a long time. It was
held that the appellant's confession was voluntary an although he had been
beaten prior to his confession, the beating was not connected to the

Page 3 of 6
confession since the LDU who arrested him didn't know at the time that the
appellant was a suspect in a murder case, he was only arrested for having
escaped from prison.
Kasule V Uganda
The accused retracted his confession and it was held that a trial within a trial
should have been held to establish the truth within the confession. It is
established law that a retracted confession will not normally support a
conviction unless it is corroborated by other evidence but the court may do so
if it is fully satisfied with the circumstances that the confession is true.
Amos Birunge V Uganda.
It was held that it is established law that when the admissibility of an extra
judicial statement is challenged, then the accused must be given a chance to
establish by evidence his or her grounds of objection through a rail within a
trial. The purpose of a trial within a trial is to decide upon the evidence of
both sides whether the confession should be admitted.
R V Kagwa
The recording officer failed to administer a caution and it was held that three
was insufficient compliance with the Evidence (statement to police officers)
rules and therefore the statement was inadmissible.
Kato V Uganda
Court held that a retracted confession had to be treated with caution and
before founding a conviction on it, the trial court has to be satisfied that the

Page 4 of 6
confession was true.
Thiono V R
Court held tat there is no rule that a court can not act on a retracted or
repudiated confession unless corroborated in a material particle. What exists
is a rule of prudence that a court should be cautious to act on such a
confession unless it is corroborated in material particulars.
Batara V Uganda
In convicting the appellant for murder, the trial judge relied on the statement
by the co accused implicating him; the judge treated that evidence as
irresistible evidence of guilt. It was held that the confession against the
accused is only of a slight evidential value and can only be used to give final
assurance to an already strong case.
Uganda V Ssebuguzi
It was held that the reason why this evidence is considered evidence of the
weakest kind is that it is not only hearsay but it is also evidence of such a
nature that the co accused cannot test its worth in cross examination of the
maker against him.
John Robert Eyiru V Uganda.
The appellant was convicted of murder. It was held that under section 29, it
had to be strictly interpreted because it could in certain circumstances lead to
the introduction of a confession which would otherwise be inadmissible. All
that could be introduced under this section was such part of the statement as
led to the discovery of something and no more.

Page 5 of 6
Birembo V Uganda
The appellants were jointly charged, tried and convicted for the offence of
murder. The deceased's body and some money belonging to the deceased
were discovered on the information obtained from the appellant. It was held
that the information to the police by the appellant was incriminatory but was
also information leading to the discovery of the act and was therefore
admissible under section 29 notwithstanding that t was made to a police
constable.
www.ayebarebruno.blogspot.com

Page 6 of 6

LAW OF EVIDENCE LLB III CASES - Ugandan On Confessions - AYEBARE BRUNO JR - LEGAL

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LAW OF EVIDENCE LLB III CASES - Ugandan On Confessions - AYEBARE BRUNO JR - LEGAL

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

LAW OF EVIDENCE LLB III CASES - Ugandan On Confessions - AYEBARE BRUNO JR - LEGAL

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LDC TERM ONE: CRIMINAL

Wasswa and anor V Uganda

http://ayebarebruno.blogspot.com/2015/09/law-of-evidence-llb-iii-cases-notes-on.html?view=sidebar 11/16/19, 8:55 PM

Mwange s/o Njoroge V R

http://ayebarebruno.blogspot.com/2015/09/law-of-evidence-llb-iii-cases-notes-on.html?view=sidebar 11/16/19, 8:55 PM

http://ayebarebruno.blogspot.com/2015/09/law-of-evidence-llb-iii-cases-notes-on.html?view=sidebar 11/16/19, 8:55 PM

Amos Birunge V Uganda.

http://ayebarebruno.blogspot.com/2015/09/law-of-evidence-llb-iii-cases-notes-on.html?view=sidebar 11/16/19, 8:55 PM

John Robert Eyiru V Uganda.

http://ayebarebruno.blogspot.com/2015/09/law-of-evidence-llb-iii-cases-notes-on.html?view=sidebar 11/16/19, 8:55 PM

http://ayebarebruno.blogspot.com/2015/09/law-of-evidence-llb-iii-cases-notes-on.html?view=sidebar 11/16/19, 8:55 PM

You might also like