[1942] EACA 59
The court held that the document authored by 'A. A. Bond' was inadmissible as evidence because there was no information before the court establishing the identity or official capacity of 'A. A. Bond'. The court found that section 230(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code requires proof that the author of such a report...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1942] EACA 59
- Parties
- Applicant: Rex; Defendant: Ngoda s/o Jumba
- Court
- East African Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Case Number
- Criminal Case No. 104 of 1942
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Trial / Ruling on Evidence
- Outcome
- document_inadmissible
- Judges
- Lucie-Smith, J. (Kenya)
- Legal Topics
- Admissibility of Evidence, Medical Evidence, Rape Offences, Criminal Procedure Code Interpretation
- 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
Applicant
Ngoda s/o Jumba
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Trial / Ruling on Evidence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the document authored by 'A. A. Bond' is admissible as evidence under section 230 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
- 2 Whether 'A. A. Bond' qualifies as a 'Medical Officer' under section 300 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the document authored by 'A. A. Bond' was inadmissible as evidence because there was no information before the court establishing the identity or official capacity of 'A. A. Bond'. The court found that section 230(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code requires proof that the author of such a report holds an office recognized by law, and section 300 distinguishes between a Government medical officer and other medical witnesses. Since neither requirement was satisfied, the document could not be admitted as medical evidence in the trial.
Court Disposition
document_inadmissible
Orders
- The document authored by 'A. A. Bond' is ruled inadmissible as evidence in this trial.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
## ORIGINAL CRIMINAL
#### BEFORE LUCIE-SMITH I
# REX, Prosecutor
$\mathbf{v}$ .
### NGODA S/O JUMBA. Accused
#### Criminal Case No. 104 of 1942
Rape—Criminal Procedure Code, section 230—"Report"—Criminal Procedure Code, section 300—"Medical Officer"—"Other medical witness"
In this case a document in the Maragoli language was admitted in evidence at the committal proceedings. The document in question reads as under:—
#### " $F. A. M.$
$17-5-42$
Friends Hospital
#### The African Tribunal
#### Mbale
# AWANDU VA TRIBUNAL
#### INDEHYA D/O IVULA
MUKANA NYA YA PIMWA HANO. UBUGIMA BWEBWE BWAHUDUKA. NA A VIMBA SHINYA. KHANDI NDA LOLA MASAHI MADIDIDI.
A. A. BOND."
Through an oversight "A. A. Bond" was not summoned as a witness before the Supreme Court. It was found to be impossible to procure this person's attendance within a reasonable time.
The document in question was admitted by the learned magistrate presumably. under the provisions of section 230, Criminal Procedure Code.
At the trial the question arose as to the admissibility of this document.
RULING.—In my opinion this document is inadmissible in that there is nothing: before this Court to show who "A. A. Bond" is. There is nothing to show that this person professes to hold any office, vide section 230 (2), or that he is a medical officer.
Looking at the wording of section 300 I am inclined to think that "Medical Officer" means a Government medical officer in contradistinction to "other medical. witness".