[1947] EACA 47
The Court held that evidence obtained through double interpretation is inadmissible unless both interpreters are called to testify, as the recording officer can only attest to what was told to him in English, which constitutes hearsay. Additionally, the Court determined that under section 119 of the Evidence...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1947] EACA 47
- Parties
- Appellant: Absolume Nakome s/o Mamumi; Appellant: Namaloba s/o Naburuku; Respondent: Rex
- Court
- East African Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeals Nos. 165 and 166 of 1947
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal Judgment
- Outcome
- Appeals allowed on other grounds; evidentiary points noted as academic in this case.
- Judges
- Bartley J, Graham Paul CJ, Nihill P
- Legal Topics
- Admissibility of Evidence, Competency of Witnesses, Interpretation of Statements
- 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
Absolume Nakome s/o Mamumi
Appellant
Namaloba s/o Naburuku
Appellant
Rex
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether a statement recorded through double interpretation is admissible without calling the interpreters as witnesses.
- 2 Whether a wife by a monogamous Christian marriage is a competent witness against her husband under section 119 of the Evidence Ordinance of Uganda.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court held that evidence obtained through double interpretation is inadmissible unless both interpreters are called to testify, as the recording officer can only attest to what was told to him in English, which constitutes hearsay. Additionally, the Court determined that under section 119 of the Evidence Ordinance of Uganda, a wife married by a monogamous Christian marriage is not a competent witness against her husband. In the present case, although these evidentiary errors did not materially affect the outcome due to the appeals succeeding on other grounds, the Court emphasized that such procedural lapses could be determinative in future cases.
Court Disposition
Appeals allowed on other grounds; evidentiary points noted as academic in this case.
Orders
- The appeals are allowed on grounds other than the evidentiary issues discussed.
- The Court draws attention to the procedural errors for future guidance.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
14 paragraphs
# COURT OF APPEAL FOR EASTERN AFRICAT
# Before NIHILL, C. J. (Kenya), SIR G. GRAHAM PAUL, C. J. (Tanganyika) and BARTLEY, J. (Kenva)
## REX. Respondent (Original Prosecutor)
# (1) ABSOLUME NAKOME s/o MAMUMI. (2) NAMALOBA s/o NABURUKU, Appellants (Original Accused)
# Criminal Appeals Nos. 165 and 166 of 1947
## (Appeals from decision of H. M. High Court of Uganda)
Evidence—Double interpretation of evidence—Competency of wife as witness against husband-Section 119, Evidence Ordinance of Uganda.
(1) A witness gave evidence of a statement recorded by him through two interpreters, neither of whom was called. (2) The wife by a Christian marriage of the first appellant was called as a witness against him.
## Held (25-8-47).-(1) That the two interpreters should have been called to make the evidence admissible.
(2) That under section 119 Evidence Ordinance, Uganda, a wife by a monogamous marriage is not a competent witness against her husband.
#### Appellants absent, unrepresented.
#### Lowe, Crown Counsel (Kenya), for the Crown.
JUDGMENT (delivered by NIHILL, C. J.).—There are two points in the evidence in this case to which we think it advisable to draw attention. In the first place, the witness Harwich, a Superintendent of Police, gave evidence that, through double interpretation, he took a voluntary statement from the second appellant. Neither of the two interpreters gave evidence and yet the statement was admitted in evidence. We think it necessary to point out that this was wrong, as all the Superintendent could say was what the second interpreter told him in English—mere hearsay. Both interpreters should have given evidence before the statement could rightly be admitted. The second appellant's appeal having succeeded on other grounds the point is only of academic interest in this case, but it would not always be so.
Secondly, we note that the witness Sebia Kiboni, the wife of the first appellant by a Christian marriage, gave evidence against him. In our view of section 119 of the Evidence Ordinance of Uganda a wife of an accused person is a competent witness against the accused only if married "by a marriage other than a monogamous marriage", and, on her own evidence, Sebia Kiboni was therefore not a competent witness against the first appellant. Her evidence, however, was of no materiality as against the first appellant, so as it happens the point is of only academic importance in the present case. We repeat the warning that it might not always be so.