[1932] EACA 29

[1932] EACA 29

The Court held that there is no inconsistency between the decisions in Rex v. Amkeyo and Rex v. Doudi Odongo. The former is authority for the proposition that the evidence of a wife by native custom against her husband is admissible under section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act, and the latter concerns the definition of 'wife' for the purposes of bigamy under the Indian Penal Code, which is not relevant to the admissibility of evidence in criminal proceedings. The Court found that the testimony of the woman married to the appellant under native custom was rightly admitted, and the conviction was supported by the evidence.

Citation
[1932] EACA 29
Parties
Respondent: Rex; Appellant: Mwakio Asani s/o Mwanguku
Court
East African Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Judgment Date
1 January 1932
Case Number
Cr. App. 63/1930.
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Dismissal
Outcome
appeal_dismissed
Judges
Barth, C.J (Kenya), Griffin C.J. (Uganda), Pickering, C.J. (Zanzibar)
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Evidence, Spousal Privilege, Native Customary Marriage, Testimony of Spouse
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Admissibility of Evidence Spousal Privilege Native Customary Marriage Testimony of Spouse

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rex

Respondent

Mwakio Asani s/o Mwanguku

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Dismissal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is the testimony of a woman married to the accused under native custom admissible under section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act without the accused's consent?
  2. 2 Is there inconsistency between the decisions in Rex v. Amkeyo and Rex v. Doudi Odongo regarding the admissibility of such evidence?

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that there is no inconsistency between the decisions in Rex v. Amkeyo and Rex v. Doudi Odongo. The former is authority for the proposition that the evidence of a wife by native custom against her husband is admissible under section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act, and the latter concerns the definition of 'wife' for the purposes of bigamy under the Indian Penal Code, which is not relevant to the admissibility of evidence in criminal proceedings. The Court found that the testimony of the woman married to the appellant under native custom was rightly admitted, and the conviction was supported by the evidence.

Court Disposition

appeal_dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The judgment at trial is affirmed.