[1935] EACA 73
The court held that the evidence supported the conviction for murder and that the appellant's drunkenness did not negate the specific intent required for the offence. The court found no reasonable doubt as to the appellant's capacity to form intent at the time of the assault. The procedural question raised was...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1935] EACA 73
- Parties
- Respondent: Rex; Appellant: Ralph Chumachienda
- Court
- East African Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 172/1934
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed; conviction for murder upheld
- Judges
- Abrahamas, C.J. (Tanganyika), Law, C.J (Zanzibar), Sheridan, P
- Legal Topics
- Murder, Drunkenness Defence, Intent, Manslaughter, Criminal Liability
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Rex
Respondent
Ralph Chumachienda
Appellant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellant's state of drunkenness negated the specific intent required for murder.
- 2 Whether the conviction should be reduced from murder to manslaughter due to intoxication.
- 3 What procedural precedent should be followed in confirming convictions from the District Magistrate.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the evidence supported the conviction for murder and that the appellant's drunkenness did not negate the specific intent required for the offence. The court found no reasonable doubt as to the appellant's capacity to form intent at the time of the assault. The procedural question raised was resolved by directing that the precedent in Rex v. Murray should be followed for confirmation of convictions, rather than the approach in Rex v. Saiti. The appeal was dismissed and the conviction for murder was upheld.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed; conviction for murder upheld
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed.
- The conviction for murder stands.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
14 paragraphs
## COURT OF APPEAL FOR EASTERN AFRICA.
## Before SIR JOSEPH SHERIDAN, P., ABRAHAMS, C. J. (Tanganyika) and Law, C. J. (Zanzibar).
REX, Respondent (Original Prosecutor)
## RALPH CHUMACHIENDA, Appellant (Original Accused). Criminal Appeal 172/1934.
The accused was charged before the District Magistrate at Zomba, with having murdered a juvenile male native by striking him on the head with a hoe thus inflicting injuries from which the child died eight days later. Two of the assessors advised that in their opinion the accused was in a state of drunkenness at the time when he committed the offence. The District Magistrate found the accused guilty. The Acting Assistant Attorney-General on behalf of the accused submitted that at the time of the assault there was a reasonable doubt as to whether accused in his state of drunkenness was capable of forming the specific intent to kill and expressed the view that accused should be convicted of manslaughter.
The case was referred to the Acting Judge of the High Court for confirmation in terms of the Criminal Procedure Code and on the authority of Rex v. Meade (1909) 1 K. B. p. 895. the Acting Judge directed the Magistrate to enter a finding of guilty and to pass sentence accordingly.
$Held$ (14-1-35).—That the drunkenness of the appellant had not the effect of reducing the crime to manslaughter.
That the decision in the case of \*Rex v. Murray (Cr. A. 133/32) should be followed as to procedure.
No appearance for parties.
JUDGMENT.-The evidence supports the conviction and we agree that the drunkenness of the appellant has not the effect of reducing the crime to manslaughter.
The appeal is dismissed.
As regards the query raised by the Acting Assistant Attorney-General on a question of procedure, our opinion is that the decision in the case of \*Rex v. Murray, Cr. App. 133/1932 should be followed rather than that in Rex v. Saiti, Cr. App. 87/1934. When the latter case was decided the Court's attention was not attracted to the decision in Rex v. Murray.
Generally in regard to appeals from Nyasaland, we desire to place on record the desirability of having such arrangements made as will secure that appeals are presented by counsel; the Court has on different occasions been handicapped in considering appeals by reason of the absence of counsel.
<span id="page-0-0"></span>\*Rex v. Murray (supra) Law Reports of Nyasaland, Vol. 3 p. 51.