[1948] EACA 40
The Court held that while the trial judge is not legally obliged to accept the unanimous opinions of assessors, it is advisable and good judicial practice to state reasons for any disagreement in the judgment. In this case, the judge accepted the prosecution's consistent evidence and rejected the defence, which was...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1948] EACA 40
- Parties
- Respondent: REX; Appellant: Mwita s/o Samo
- Court
- East African Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal No. 162 of 1948
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal Dismissed
- Outcome
- appeal_dismissed
- Judges
- Edwards CJ, Nihill P, Wilson CJ
- Legal Topics
- Trial With Assessors, Judge Disagreement With Assessors, Criminal Attempt, Evidence Evaluation
- 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
Mwita s/o Samo
Appellant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Dismissed
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial judge was required to discuss and provide reasons for disagreeing with the unanimous opinions of the assessors.
- 2 Whether the conviction was supported by sufficient evidence despite contrary opinions from the assessors.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court held that while the trial judge is not legally obliged to accept the unanimous opinions of assessors, it is advisable and good judicial practice to state reasons for any disagreement in the judgment. In this case, the judge accepted the prosecution's consistent evidence and rejected the defence, which was within his discretion. The absence of discussion of the assessors' opinions in the judgment was noted as undesirable, but did not amount to a legal error. The conviction was upheld as the evidence was found sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Court Disposition
appeal_dismissed
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed.
- The conviction and sentence of three years' imprisonment with hard labour are upheld.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
15 paragraphs
## COURT OF APPEAL FOR EASTERN AFRICA
Before SIR BARCLAY NIHILL, C. J. (Kenya), EDWARDS, C. J. (Uganda), and MARK-WILSON, AG. C. J. (Tanganyika)
REX, Respondent (Original Prosecutor)
v.
MWITA $s/o$ SAMO, Appellant (Original Accused) Criminal Appeal No. 162 of 1948
(Appeal from decision of H. M. High Court of Tanganyika)
Criminal Procedure and Practice-Trial with Assessors-Assessors and Judge coming to different conclusions—Opinions of Assessors not discussed in the judgment—Not advisable practice.
The appellant was convicted of unlawfully attempting to strike one Kiguna with an arrow with intent to maim, disfigure or disable, or to do grievous harm, or to resist lawful arrest, contrary to section 222 (2) Tanganyika Penal Code, and sentenced to three years' imprisonment with hard labour. At the trial the two Assessors held that the appellant did not fire the arrow. The trial Judge had no doubt, on the evidence, as to the appellant's guilt but in his judgment made no reference to the opinions of the Assessors.
Held (12-10-48).—That in all cases where a trial Judge comes to a contrary finding on facts to the unanimous opinion of assessors it is a good practice for the Judge to state in his judgment reasons for his disagreement.
Appeal dismissed.
Appellant absent, unrepresented.
Bennet, Crown Counsel (Tanganyika), for the Crown.
JUDGMENT (delivered by SIR BARCLAY NIHILL, C. J.).-No question of law arises in this appeal. The appellant was convicted on evidence which once accepted fully established his guilt. The story told by the prosecution witnesses was a consistent one and although there was *contra* evidence for the defence the learned Judge who saw the witnesses and had the opportunity of studying their demeanour accepted the Crown's story and rejected that of the defence. This he was fully entitled to do and the responsibility for doing so was his. It is true that both the Assessors came to a different conclusion but the learned Judge was under no obligation to accept their opinions and in fact could not do sounless in agreement with them. The learned Judge has not in his judgment discussed the opinions given by the Assessors. It might have been better had he done so particularly as the reason given by the second Assessor for his rejection of the prosecution evidence is clearly misconceived since there was evidence that the native messenger's party did run away when the appellant produced his bow and fired an arrow.
In all cases where a trial Judge comes to a contrary finding on the facts. to the opinions unanimously shared by the Assessors we think it a good practice for the Judge to state in his judgment reasons for his disagreement.
The appeal is dismissed.