[1945] EACA 30
The Court held that, pursuant to section 6 of the Indian Oaths Act, 1873, which is applicable in Tanganyika, Mohamedan witnesses should be affirmed rather than sworn. The Court also referred to section 13 of the Act and the case of Rex v. Bitashubirwe bin Gujwire, which address the consequences of failing to...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1945] EACA 30
- Parties
- Respondent: Rex; Appellant: Saidi s/o Mkale
- Court
- East African Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal No. 208 of 1945
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Decision of H. M. High Court of Tanganyika
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Judges
- Gray CJ, Sheridan CJ, Whitley CJ
- Legal Topics
- Murder, Oaths and Affirmations, Mohamedan Witnesses, Indian Oaths Act, Malice Aforethought
- 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
Saidi s/o Mkale
Appellant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Decision of H. M. High Court of Tanganyika
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether Mohamedan witnesses should be sworn or affirmed under the Indian Oaths Act, 1873, as applied to Tanganyika.
- 2 What are the consequences of failure to administer an oath or affirmation to a Mohamedan witness.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court held that, pursuant to section 6 of the Indian Oaths Act, 1873, which is applicable in Tanganyika, Mohamedan witnesses should be affirmed rather than sworn. The Court also referred to section 13 of the Act and the case of Rex v. Bitashubirwe bin Gujwire, which address the consequences of failing to administer an oath or affirmation. The appeal was dismissed as the accused was proved to have killed the deceased with malice aforethought, and the procedural question regarding the affirmation of Mohamedan witnesses was clarified for future practice.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed.
- Mohamedan witnesses should be affirmed under section 6 of the Indian Oaths Act, 1873.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
11 paragraphs
## COURT OF APPEAL FOR EASTERN AFRICA
Before SIR JOSEPH SHERIDAN, C. J. (Kenya), SIR NORMAN WHITLEY, C. J. (Uganda), and SIR JOHN GRAY, C. J. (Zanzibar)
## REX, Respondent (Original Prosecutor)
# SAIDI s/o MKALE, Appellant (Original Accused)
## Criminal Appeal No. 208 of 1945
### (Appeal from decision of H. M. High Court of Tanganyika)
Criminal Law—Murder—Mohamedan witness—Affirmation of—Indian Oaths Act, 1873, sections 6 and 13.
This case is reported to remove any doubt which may exist as to the proper practice to be followed in the case of Mohamedan witnesses.
### Appellant absent, unrepresented.
#### Todd, Crown Counsel (Kenya), for the Crown.
JUDGMENT (delivered by SIR JOSEPH SHERIDAN, C. J.).—The accused was proved to have killed the deceased with malice aforethought. The accused was a thief found running away with stolen clothes. A hue and cry was raised and he fatally stabbed a man who was trying to arrest him. The appeal is dismissed. The learned Judge has asked this Court for a ruling as to whether Mohamedan witnesses should be sworn or affirmed. Section 6 of the Indian Oaths Act, 1873, which has been applied to Tanganyika, provides that they should be affirmed. The learned Judge is also referred to $\text{Re}x$ v. Bitashubirwe bin Gujwire, 10 E. A. C. A. 78, in which the consequences of failure to administer an oath or affirmation are dealt with. (Section 13 of the Indian Oaths Act.)