[1936] EACA 51

[1936] EACA 51

The Court held that the prosecution is not obliged to call every witness who has made a deposition, but must ensure such witnesses are present in court so the defence may call them if desired. The trial judge acted within his discretion in rejecting Mariamu's evidence, having found her demeanour unreliable and her account inconsistent with other credible witnesses. The prosecution's duty is satisfied by having witnesses in attendance, and the defence was not prejudiced, as they were able to cross-examine Mariamu. The authorities cited confirm prosecutorial discretion in witness selection, and the trial judge's findings of fact were supported by adequate reasons. The appeal was dismissed...

Citation
[1936] EACA 51
Parties
Appellant: Abdullah Waneibuge s/o Kadongo; Respondent: Rex
Court
East African Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Judgment Date
1 January 1936
Case Number
Cr. App. No. 51/1936.
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Judges
Abrahamas, C.J. (Tanganyika), Gamble, J. (Uganda), Sheridan CJ
Legal Topics
Duty of Prosecution, Calling Witnesses, Evidence Evaluation, Murder Trial
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Duty of Prosecution Calling Witnesses Evidence Evaluation Murder Trial

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Abdullah Waneibuge s/o Kadongo

Appellant

Rex

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is prosecuting counsel obliged to call all witnesses who have made depositions at trial.
  2. 2 What is the duty of the prosecution regarding witnesses whose names appear on the indictment.
  3. 3 Should the trial court have relied on the evidence of Mariamu or was it properly rejected.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the prosecution is not obliged to call every witness who has made a deposition, but must ensure such witnesses are present in court so the defence may call them if desired. The trial judge acted within his discretion in rejecting Mariamu's evidence, having found her demeanour unreliable and her account inconsistent with other credible witnesses. The prosecution's duty is satisfied by having witnesses in attendance, and the defence was not prejudiced, as they were able to cross-examine Mariamu. The authorities cited confirm prosecutorial discretion in witness selection, and the trial judge's findings of fact were supported by adequate reasons. The appeal was dismissed...

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.