KEITH BUSINGYE LAW GUIDE ON EVIDENCE LAW.

KEITH BUSINGYE LAW GUIDE

A WRITEN STUDY OUTLINE IN THE LAW OF EVIDENCE

• 1995 constitution of the republic of Uganda
• The evidence act cap 6 law of Uganda 2000
• The evidence (banker is books) Act cap 7 laws of Uganda 2000
• The evidence (statement to police officers) rules
• Penal code 17 Act

  PRELIMINARY DEFINIYIONS AND PRINCIPLE ITEMS OF JUDICIAL EVIDENCE

Facts, facts in issues, court, documents, documentary evidence, probation viva, judicial notice, oral evidence, reverence, facts deemed to be relevant by the evidence Act and admissibility and weigh attached to evidence is relevant and admissible

 

FACTS DECLERED TO BE RELEVANT

This entails the concept of relevance and admissibility of evidence, facts deemed to be relevant by the evidence Act and admissibility and weight attached to evidence. Main issues is whether particular evidence is relevant and admissible

Ø  section15 Evidence Act

Ø  The resgestae Doctrine

Ø  Uganda v Kamugisha (1988-90) HCB 77 (only evidence relevant to issues before court)

Ø  Struggle (U) Ltd Pan African Insurance co. ltd (1990-91) Karl (evidence on issues  arising before court).

 

 MODE OF PROCURING EVIDENCE

The question is whether evidence obtained, legally is admissible.

Ø  s. 78 E.A

Ø  Nkurumah v Republic (mode of procuring evidence is irrelevant if evidence is relevant)

Ø  Electronic evidence

 

 FACTS FORMING THE SAME TRANSACTION

Question is what amounts to same transaction, importance of proximity of time, mainly statements made in course of transaction not after.

Ø  R vs. Kurji (1940) 7 EACA 58 (meaning the same

Ø  Ramadan Ismail v The crown 72LR 36 (whether statement made in course of transaction)

Ø  Thompson v Trevenion (1963) 402 (statement made immediately upon being assaulted )

 

FACTS WHICH ARE THE OCCASION, COUSE OF EFFECTS OF FACTS IN ISSUES

Focus on previous Acts, threats, transactions that can throw light on how the fact in issues arise

Ø  Harris v DPP (1952) AC 57 (previous acts not evidence of guide)

Ø  Gabula David v Uganda  App. No. 4 of 2002 (earlier threat to kill)

  

MOTIVE, PREPARATION AND CONDUCT MOTIVE

(Generally motive is irrelevant, not an ingredient of an offense, but may be considered, no person would commit an offense without a motive, see effect of failure to prove effect.

Ø  Godfrey v Tinkamanyire and Anor v Uganda (1988-90) HCBS (whether motive irrelevant in criminal proceedings

Ø  Charles Benon Buhwire v Uganda (1987) HCB (whether proof of motives is a legal requirement

Ø  Conduct (includes previous and subsequent conduct)

Ø  Conduct that is not usual of accused includes previous threats, beating, relationships

Previous conduct

Ø  Makindi v R (1961) EA 237

Ø  Livingston Kakooza v Uganda S.C. Cr. App. 17/93

Subsequent conduct

Ø  Uganda v Simon Onen (1991) HCB7 (hiding)

Ø  Uganda v Kabandize (1892) HCB (running away from the scene)

Ø  Lobbo Y.R (Complaints of victims in sexual assault case)

  

  EXPLANATORY AND INTRODUCTORY FACTS

Identify, Names Dates Places, Description, Circumstantial Evidence Relates to facts explaining how an issue across circumstances under which it happened, alibi and the burden of proof or disprove alibi, identification evidence and conditions permissibly of evidence of single identifying witness.

Ø  S.8 UEA. Under the section evidence may be given of

Ø  Facts which explain or introduce a fact in issues or relevant facts

Ø  Facts which rebut or support an inference suggested by a fact in issue or relevant fact

Ø  5.8-10 UEA -Abdul Kyagulanyi v Uganda (1988-90)

       Facts which establish the identity of anything or person who’s identifying is relevant.

Ø  Uganda vs Kakooza

         facts the time and place at which a fact in issues or relevant facts happened.

Ø  Facts which show the relationship between parties to a suit by whom any such fact was transacted.

Ø  RV Christine (1914) AC 545

Ø  RV Straffen

Exceptions the general rule where crimes omitted by accused is admissible, as it proves he committed the crime with which he is charged.

     

 INCONSISTENT FACTS

Inconsistence and contradictions in evidence

Ø  Ug v Abdalla Nasur YR (1982) EA 555) HCBI (Minor inconsistency)

Ø  Okello Okale V R (1965) EA 555 (Deliberate false hood)

Identification

• Meaning of identification

• Bogere moses v Uganda SCCA NO 1/1997
• Uganda v Dick Ojok (1992-1993) HCB

Ø  Identification through previous conduct

Ø  RV Straffen (1952) 2 AB-911(method used in killing)

Ø  Single identifying witness and a consideration for admissibility evidence.

·         Abdallah Nabulele v Uganda Cr App 1281 (guideline to admissibility of evidence of a single identifying witness)

·         Conditions for proper identification

          Walakira Abass and others v Uganda SSCA NO 25of 2002

         (evidence of identification to be tested with great care)

·         Identification parade

Ø  Uganda v Kakooza (19840HCB

Ø  Sentale v Uganda (procedure for conducting identification parade)

COMMON INTENTION

Ø  section 100 the evidence Act

Ø  RY Black Tyre (1884)  6 G.B .126

Ø  Uganda v Mugenyi and Anor (1994) 2KALR 76

STATE OF MIND OR BODILY FEELING

Ø  section 14 of the evidence Act

Ø  Akrabi v R (1956) 23 EACA 512

SERIES OF SIMILER OCURENCES

Ø   Section 15 of the evidence Act

Ø  Makindi v R (1961) E.A 327

        Admissibility of confession

      Proper authority

     S.24 Evidence Act (see evidence amendment Act (19850

Ø  Emmanuel Nsubuga v Uganda (1992-93) HCB 24

Voluntariness (section 25 of the evidence Act)

Ø  Lutwama David v Uganda SCCA NO.4 of 2003 (effects of non compliance with police orders)

Effect of inducement and threats (s.26 OF Evidence Act

Rv Ibrahim (1914) AC599

·         Effect of deception and tricks (section 27 Evidence Act )

·         R V Ibrahim (1994) AC 599

·         Effect of deception and tricks (section 27 evidence act)

·         Retracted and repudiated confections

Ø  Andrea Isingoma v Uganda (1989) KALR 26

·         Confessions against an accused and co accused.

Ø  S.28 Uganda Evidence act

HEAR SAY EVIDENCE

Ø  Ss.57, 58, 59, UEA)

·         MEANING AND RATIONAL FOR THE HEARSARY RULE

Ø  Chaudresekera YR. (1937) AC 220 (statement verbal written or oral)

Ø  Subramanian v Public prosecutor (1956) IWLR 965 (statement introduced for the purpose of establishing the truth )

The rule against hearsay evidence

Ø  Rv Gibson (1937) 18 Q.B 537

·         Exceptions to the  General rule S. 30 evidence Act

Ø  Thornhill v Thornhill E.A 168 (delay and expense )

DYING DECLARATION

Ø  Section 30 of evidence Act

·         Statements made in the ordinary course of business

Ø  Section 30 (b) evidence act

Ø  R v Mugandazi (1914) ULR 108

·         Statement against interest of maker

Ø  Taylor v Witham (1876) 3 CH. D 605

·         Pedigree Declarations

Ø  Section 30 evidence Act

·         Private rights and family affairs

S.30 (G) 30 (F) Evidence Act

·         Public rights and public records

Ø  Ss 30 (d),34,37,38,39,40,and 41 evidence Act

ADMISSIONS

Ø  Section 16 of the evidence Act.

·         Categories of administration

Ø  Those made of the beginning of the trial

Ø  Those made without a view of trial

·         Administrations by persons expressly referred to by  the suit

·         S.20 E.A

·         Exceptions to the general rule that admissions should be made against the maker.

·         Circumstances in which admissions are made (S.20E.A)

·         Instances that may water down the weight of an admission

          RY Hedges 3 Criminal APP -R 262

          Powell v MCG Lynn 1902 154

·         Admissions made under compulsion or coercion

·         Form of admissions

Ø  Re Cohen (1924) 2 ch 515

·         Matters provable by admissions

Ø  Robinson v Robinson

·         Admissions from documents section 21 Evidence Act

·         Instance of admissibility of oral evidence

Ø  S 62 Evidence Act

Ø  S.69 Evidence Act

Ø  Deo v Webster

·         Ambiguous Admissions

Ø  Davy v London and South Railways.                   

 

EVIDENCE OF OPINION;

Ø  SS.43-49 UEA

Ø  Who is an expert

Ø  S.43  UEA

Ø  R.v Gatheru [1954] 21 EACA 384 [DEFINITION OF AN EXPERT ]

Ø  RV. Silver lock [1894] [expert through experience]

EVIDENCE OF CHARACTER

Ø  Character in criminal cases;

Ø  Ss.52 UEA

Ø  Settumba v. R[1957] EA 35 [relevance of good character]

Ø  R.V. Rowton (1966) 25 [evidence of cross section of society]

Ø  Character in civil cases:

KEITH BUSINGYE LAW.