Uganda Christian University School of Law Evidence I Course

Contents hide
1 Uganda Christian University School of Law Evidence I Course
1.1 Uganda Christian University Bachelor of Laws Courses For Year 1
1.2 Uganda Christian University Bachelor of Laws Courses For Year 2
1.3 Uganda Christian University Bachelor of Laws Courses For Year 3
1.4 Uganda Christian University Bachelor of Laws Courses For Year 4
1.5 [button link=”https://ugfacts.net/list-law-schools-uganda/” bg_color=”red”]List of Law Schools in Uganda[/button]

Uganda Christian University School of Law Evidence I Course

UGANDA CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY

FACULTY OF LAW

LAW OF EVIDENCE 1 READING LIST

  1. Course Description

The study of the Law of Evidence covers two Semesters. In the first Semester, the course covers an introduction to legal philosophy and reasoning, historical development of the law of evidence, the principle of res gestae, admissions and confessions, hearsay evidence, evidence of character and opinion evidence.

 

Assessment for the course will be based on Oral Advocacy and Rhetoric exercises and an Exam. Oral Advocacy and Rhetoric exercises will involve class participation in “Trial Lab”, Direct and cross examination Exercises which shall contribute 30% of the final exam score. The exam will be a limited open book (where candidates will be allowed to carry into the exam room a clean copy of the Evidence Act, Cap.6) and will contribute 70% of the final exam mark.

  1. Course Objectives

At the end of the course, students will:

 

  • Know the rules governing the adduction of relevant and admissible evidence in legal proceedings.
  • Be acquainted with the rules of evidence in relation to relevancy of facts and proof
  • At the end of the course, be able to determine what kind of evidence will be excluded from consideration in judicial proceedings.

 

No case before a court of law can be won unless convincing relevant evidence has been adduced. Accordingly, one cannot over emphasise the importance of studying the law of evidence.

 

  1. Required Readings
  2. REFERENCES:        
  1. The 1995 Constitution
  2. The Evidence Act Cap. 6 LOU 2000
  3. The Evidence (Bankers’ Books) Act Cap 7 LOU 2000
  4. The Evidence (Statements to Police Officers) Rules
  5. The Oaths Act.
  1. MAIN TEXT BOOKS
  1. Morris HF: Evidence in East Africa (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 1968)
  2. Roderick Munday:  Evidence (7th ed, Oxford University Press, 2013)
  3. Cross and Tapper:  Evidence (12th ed, Oxford University Press,  2010)
  4. Archbold: Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice (London, Sweet & Maxwell, 2014)
  5. Nokes:  An Introduction to Evidence (2nd Edn. Sweet & Maxwell, 1956)
  6. Phipson on Evidence (17th Edn. Sweet & Maxwell, 2009)
  7. Ochola Obola: The East African Law of Evidence
  8. Woodroff & Ali:  The law of Evidence applicable to British India
  9. Morris & Read: Uganda, the development of its laws and Constitution
  10. A Stein: Foundations of Evidence Law, Oxford University Press (2005)
  11. W Twinning: Rethinking Evidence, 2nd Edition, Cambridge University Press (2006)

 

 

  1. OTHER REFERENCES:
  1. Field’s Law of Evidence
  2. The English and Empire Digest Vol. 22.
  3. Sarker C.S. Law of Evidence
  4. Halsbury’s Laws of England 3rd Ed. Vol. 15
  5. Evidence for Magistrates: P. Durand
  6. Thayer: A Preliminary Treatise on Evidence at Common Law
  7. L.D.C. Handbook for Magistrates
  8. M. Ratanlal Vakil: The Law of Evidence 15 Ed.
  9. Pundik, Amit, Epistemology & the Law of Evidence: Four Doubts About Alex Stein’s Foundations of Evidence Law (January 8, 2006). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=942635
WEEK ONE

 

 INTRODUCTION
Meaning:

Items of Judicial Evidence

The terminology

 

 This shall inter-alia entail the meaning of evidence, the various pieces/forms of evidence, the relevant terms used in the law of evidence and the general scope of the law of evidence and specifically;

v  The Place of Evidence in Legal Philosophy

v  Substantive Vs. Adjectival Law

v  The Law of Evidence in Legal Reasoning

v  Towards a Political Economy of the Law of Evidence

v  Early modes of trial in England and the resultant evolution of the Law of Evidence
Required reading:

 
  1. Noakes pp. 3 – 180
  2. Cross pp. 1 -12

v  Essential points of concern shall include; The imposition of the English Law of Evidence in Colonial Africa, the Uganda Evidence Act – its conclusiveness, the interpretation of the Evidence Act, the relationship between the Evidence Act and the constitution as well as other related and relevant statutes and the application of principles of common law to the law of evidence.

v  S.3 UEA

v  Morris pp. 1 – 23

v  R. v. Brabin & Khosla (1947) E.A. 80 [Whether English law is relevant to interpret the Act].

v  Wallace Johnson V R(1940) 1 ALLER 241 [Whether Act contains the whole law of Evidence]

v  Oscar Stjenholm V Gullemina (1955) 28 KALR 183 [whether Act to be interpreted as exclusive of English cases]
Scope of the Evidence Act

 

 S.2 of the Act

v  Premchand V Quarry Service of East Africa(1969) EA 514, 516[ mode of adducing evidence, evidence to be taken viva voce before trial court]

v  London Overseas Trading Co Ltd V Raleigh [1959] EA 1012 [whether Act is applicable to affidavits]

v  Standard Goods Corporation V Mathu Limited (1950)17 EACA 99[scope of the Act

v  Gaspair Ltd V Gandy [1962] EA 542.
Preliminary Definitions and Principle Items Of Judicial  

       Evidence:

 

 The focus shall mainly be on the meaning of; facts, facts in Issue, relevancy, admissibility, proof, probative force, evidence, insufficient Evidence, prima facie evidence, conclusive Evidence, presumptions, testimony, hearsay, documents, things, facts as Evidence of other facts (circumstantial Evidence)

 

 
WEEKS TWO TO SIX FACTS DECLARED TO BE RELEVANT

This entails the concepts of relevance and admissibility of evidence, facts deemed to be relevant by the Evidence Act and determinants of admissibility and weight attached to evidence. Main issue is whether particular evidence is relevant and admissible. Evidence is relevant and admissible to issues being the subject of contention.

 
Required Reading
  1. Ss 4, 6 – 15. Evidence Act.
  2. The Res Gestae Doctrine
  3. Uganda v. Kamugisha (1988 – 90) HCB 77[only evidence relevant to issue before court.
  4. Struggle (U) Ltd. v. Pan African Insurance Co. Ltd. (1990-91) Karl 46[Evidence on issues arising before court,]
  5. Darlington Bakunda & Anor V AG & Others Constitutional Petition No. [Issues before court].
Mode of procuring evidence

 

    The question whether evidence obtained illegally is admissible.
  1. Nkrumah V Republic [mode of procuring evidence is irrelevant if evidence is relevant.
  2. Rtrd Col. Dr. Kiiza Besigye & Ors V Uganda [capacity to give evidence regardless of criminality of witness].

 
Facts forming the same transaction

 

 The question is what amounts to same transaction, importance of proximity of time, mainly statements made in course of transaction not after.
  1. R V. Kurji (1940) 7 EACA 58[Meaning of same transaction]
  2. Ramadhan Ismail V The Crown 7 ZLR 36[whether statement made in course of transaction]
  3. R V Bird’s Eye[ meaning of same transaction]
  4. The Oriental Fire and General Assurance Ltd v. Govinder & Others (1969) EA 116[ proximity in terms of time]
  5. Thompson V Trevenion [1963] Skin 402 [statement made immediately upon being assaulted]

 
Facts which are the occasion, cause or effect of facts in issue

 

 The focus on previous acts, threats, transactions that can throw light on how the fact in issue arose.
  1. R. v. Brabin & Khosla (1947) E.A. 80 [nexus btn previous & subsequent corrupt transaction]
  2. Makindi v. R (1961) EA 327 [Previous beatings and threats]
  3. Gabula David V Uganda SC Crim App No. 4 of 2002 [earlier  threat to kill]
  4. Harris v. DPP (1952) AC 57 [previous acts not evidence of guilt]
  5. Mudi & Others V Republic [1957] EA 371

 
Motive, Preparation and Conduct

 

 MOTIVE: [generally motive is irrelevant, not an ingredient of an offence but may be considered; no person would commit an offence without a motive, see effect of failure to prove motive]

1.        Godfrey Tinkamalire & Anor v. Uganda (1988-90) HCB 5.[whether motive is relevant in criminal proceedings]

2.       Charles Benon Bitwire v. Uganda (1987) HCB 11[whether proof of motive is a legal requirement]

3.       Frankleen Byaruhanga v. Uganda, Supreme Ct, Cr Appl. 7/90[importance of motive]

4.      John Bisset Stenhouse v. Uganda (1971) Part II ULR 14[importance of motive]

5.       Uganda v. Barinkunda S/o Rwebanda (1985) HCB 12 [effect of absence of motive]

6.      Uganda V Paulo Muwanga [ effect of absence of motive in weak cases]

Conduct: [includes previous and subsequent conduct, must be conduct inconsistent with the accused’s innocence, conduct is question of fact, conduct must be based on evidence, conduct that is not usual of accused, includes previous threats, beatings, relationship etc.

 

Previous Conduct

    1. Makindi v. R (1961) EA 237 [ previous beatings]
    2. Makin v. A.G. (N.S.W.) (1894) AC 57[ previous killings]
    3. R v. Smith (1915) 11 Cr. App R. 279[mode of killing]
    4. Waibi & Anor v. Uganda (1968) EA 27[previous threats]
    5. R v. Ball (1911) AC 47 [previous relationship and behavior]
    6. Livingstone Kakooza v. Uganda S.C. Cr. App. 17/93 [previous conduct; based on evidence]

Subsequent Conduct

1.        Uganda v. Simon Onen (1991) HCB 7[hiding]

2.       Uganda v. Abdalla shabani (1974) HCB 28[running away]

3.       Uganda v. Kabandize (1892) HCB 9[running away from the scene]

4.       Lobbo V R [complaints of victims in sexual assault cases]

5.       R v Camelleri [complaints as evidence of consistent conduct]

 
Explanatory and Introductory Facts

 

 Identity, Names, Dates, Place, Description, Circumstantial Evidence. [Relates facts explaining how fact in issue arose/circumstances under which it happened, alibi and the burden of proof or disproof of alibi, identification evidence, and the conditions for admissibility of evidence of single identifying witness.

Facts explaining or introducing a fact in issue

  1. Kanyambo S/O Kitambo V R (1942) LT LR 252
  2. R v Johnson [

Facts that support or rebut an inference

  1. Abdul Kyagulanyi v. Uganda (1988-90) HCB 16

 
Inconsistent Facts

 

 Inconsistencies and Contradictions in Evidence: [nature of inconsistence, minor inconsistencies if explained, major inconsistencies, doubts in prosecution evidence, burden of proof
  1. Uganda v. Ngirabakunzi, & others (1988-90) HCB 40 [effect of grave inconsistencies]
  2. Vincent Rwamaro v. Uganda (1988-90) HCB 10 [discrepancies constituting deliberate falsehoods]
  3. Uganda v. Abdalla Nasur (1982) HCB 1[minor inconsistence]
  4. Alfred Tajar V UG EACA Crim APP 166/1969[effect of inconsistencies]
  5. Patrick Akol V Uganda SSCA [unexplained inconsistency]
  6. Okello Okale v. R (1965) EA 555 [ Deliberate falsehoods]
  7. Uganda v. Ndamagye (1988-90) HCB 66 [burden on prosecution to explain inconsistencies]
  8. Uganda v. Edirisa Ssali & 3 others (1991) HCB 40[inconsistence between testimony and police statements]
  9. Uganda v. Katushabe (1988-90) HCB 59[discrepancies going to the root of the case].

Circumstantial evidence

  1. Kazibwe Kassim V Uganda SCCA No.1 of 2003[inculpatory facts incapable of other explanation]
  2. Kasaija Emmanuel V Uganda SCCA No. 6 of 2003[irresistible inference of guilt]
  3. Byaruhanga Fodoori V Uganda SSCA No.18 of 2003[no other co-existing circumstances weakening inference of guilt]
  4. Uganda v. Richard Baguma (1988-90) HCB 74 [incompatibility of inculpatory facts with accused’s innocence]
  5. Uganda v. Nyabenda (1972) 11 ULR 19 [no other possible or alternative explanation]
  6. Uganda v. Kasya (1988-90) HCB 48 [evidence to irresistibly point to guilt of accused]
  7. Richard Ogola v. Uganda (1993) 111 KALR 65 [mere suspicion is not enough]
  8. Uganda v. Yonasani Balinda (1992-93) HCB 72[ no other co-existing inference]
  9. Nazir Ahmed v. Republic [1964] EA 345
  10.  [ no possibility of accident]
  11. Baland Singh V R[ Importance of circumstantial Evidence]
  12. Emmanuel Nsubuga v. Uganda (1992-93) HCB 24[ court must be sure of no other circumstance weakening inference of guilt]

Other Cases

  1. Uganda v. Mubyazita & Ors (1972) 11 ULR 3[
  2. Mangayi v. Uganda (1965) E.A 667
  3. R. v. Tabulayenka s/o Kirya & Others (1943) 10 EACA 51
  4. Bamakali Lutwama & Ors v. Uganda. R. App 38/89
  5. Serunkuma Yowana v. Ug. Cr. App 8/89
  6. Tindiguuhura Mbaho v. Ug. Cr. App 9/87
  7. Yowana Serwada v. Ug. Cr. App 11/77
  8. Rubashaka v. Ug (1971) 11 URL 13
  9. Francis Xavier Kayemba v. Uganda (1983) HCB 30

Identification:

Alibi

1.        Kyarimpa V Uganda SSCA10/95 [burden of proof lies on prosecution].

2.       Uganda v. Kakooza (1984) HCB I [ prosecution must disprove alibi]

3.       Uganda v. Kasya (1988-90) HCB 48[ prosecution must destroy alibi]

4.      Uganda v. Dusman Sabuni (1981) HCB 1[ effect of alibi]

5.       Sulemani Katusabe V Uganda SC Cr. App No.7 of 1991[assessment of evidence of prosecution evidence V Defence evidence.]

6.      Uganda v. Ejabu and Anor (1982) HCB 82

7.       Okecho & Anor v. Uganda (1977) HCB 270

8.      Uganda v. Tembo and 2 others (1992-93) HCB 78

9.      Uganda v. Doviko Kaija (1991) HCB 34

10.    Uganda v. Musana 72 others (1985)HCB 20
Identification Meaning of identification

1.        Bogere Moses V Uganda SCCA No 1/1997.[placing accused at scene of crime]

2.       Roria v. Republic (1967) EA 583 [importance of question of identification]

3.       Uganda V Dick Ojok[1992-1993] HCB[burden of proof]

4.      Uganda v. Richard Kadidi & Kabagambe (1992-93) HCB 59 [prosecution evidence depends heavily on identification of accused].

Identification through Previous Conduct

  1. Kayambo S/o Kitambo (1942) IT. L.R. 258[ previous transaction]
  2. Uganda v. Kakooza (1984) HCB I[must be based on Evidence]
  3. R. v. Christie (1914) A.C. 545[demeanor of accused]
  4. Perkins Jeffrey v. R (1915) 2 K.B. 702 [previous related acts at same & time.
  5. R. v. Straffen (1952)2 AB. 911[method used in killing]
  6. Thompson v. R (1918) AC. 221

Single Identifying Witness and considerations for admissibility of evidence

1. Uganda v. George Wilson Simbwa, S.C. Cr. App. 37/95 [conditions for correct identification]

2. Abdalla Nabulere v. Uganda Cr. App 1281[guidelines to admissibility of evidence of a single identifying witness].

Conditions for proper identification

  1. Abdalla Bin Wendo & Sheh Bin Mwambere v. R (1953) 20 EACA 166(Distance, need for to testing such evidence with great care ]
  2. Okello Okale v. R (1965) EA 555(Distance and inconsistence]
  3. Emmanuel Nsubuga v. Uganda (1992-93) HCB 24[ fear and difficult conditions]
  4. Uganda V Tembo & Others [[ presence of a big crowd]
  5. Uganda v. Abdalla Nasur (1982) HCB 1[honest mistake]
  6. Uganda v. Kakooza (1984) HCB I[ physical features]
  7. Franswa Kizza v. Uganda (1983) HCB 12 [open place and knowledge of accused]
  8. Jackson Zitta V Uganda SCCA    [Previous knowledge and time of day]
  9. Uganda V Kyobwengye [previous knowledge of accused.
  10. Uganda v. Richard Kadidi & Kabagambe (1992-93) HCB 59[conditions for correct identification]
  11. Uganda v. Bosco Okello Alias Anyanya [Previous knowledge, availability of light, fear]
  12. Richard Munnu v. Uganda (1988-90) HCB 1[Identification by dying declaration ]
  13. Walakira Abas, & Others V Uganda SSCA No.25 of 2002[evidence of identification to be tested with great care]
  14. Moses Kasana v. Uganda (1988-90) HCB 76[need for corroboration]

Identification Parade

  1. Moses Kasana v. Uganda (1988-90) HCB 76[ value of Parade]
  2. Sentale V Uganda [procedure of conducting Identification parade]
  3. Uganda v. Kakooza (1984) HCB
  4. Musoke v. R (1958) EA 715

  Other cases on Identification

  1. Charles Kayemba v. Uganda (1985) HCB 9
  2. Uganda v. Kayanja & Ors (1994) 11 KALR 11
  3. Abdu Lubowa v. Uganda (1975) HCB 304
  4. Donozio Kiiza v. Uganda (1989) KALR 65
  5. Sylvester Tugugu & Ors v. Ug Cr. App. 16/92
  6. Rex v. Sekatuka (1940-47) 13-14 EACA 80
  7. Isaya Bikumu v. Ug. Cr. Appl. 24/89
  8. Patrick Kasolo v. Ug. Cr. App 4/89
  9. Robert Sabiti v. Ug. Cr. App. 4/89
  10. Bamakala Lutwama v. Ug. Cr. App 38/89
Common Intention

 

 Section 10, U.E.A.
  1. R V Murphy [ essential requirements for common intention
  2. R v. Blake Tye (1884) 6 G.B. 126 [common interest]
  3. R v. I.R.C. Haulage (1944) I K.B. 551[companies and common intention]
  4. R v. McDonnel (1966) IQ.B 233 [companies and common intention]
  5. R. v. Karia & Mawji (1949) 16 E.A.C.A. 116[requisites for common intention]
  6. Birikadde v. Uganda (1986) HCB 6[failure to dissociate, furtherance of common intention]
  7. Uganda v. Paddy Kalenzi (1989) KALR 233[prior agreement]
  8. Uganda v. Mugenyi & Anor (1994)2 KALR 76[assistance and encouragement]
  9. Geresomu Gihinganwa v. Uganda (1986) HCB 1[active participation of accused]
  10. Donozio Kiiza v. Uganda (1989) KALR 65[existence of two or more persons]
  11. Andrea Isingoma v. Uganda (1989) KALR 26[confession as evidence of common intention]
  12. Magayi v. Uganda (1965) E.A. 667[killing by a group]
  13. R. v. Tabulayenka s/o Kirya & Ors (1943) 10 EACA 51[accused’s participation]
  14. Kayemba v. Uganda (1986) HCB 9[Mere suspicion is not enough]
  15. Fred Sabahashi v. Uganda S.C.Cr. App 23/93
  16. Uganda v. Alfunsion Obonge (1976) HCB 25
State of Mind or Bodily Feeling S. 14 UEA

[Mental element in offences, offences requiring proof of mensrea, malice, ill will, bodily conditions etc

  1. Akrabi v. R (1956) 23 EACA 512 [ previous offences to prove intention]
  2. Kiwanuka & Anor v. R (1956) 7 ULR. Part II 172[ previous articles to prove malice]
  3. R. v. Godfrey (1947) 22 K.L.R. 44 [ mental and physical condition]
Series of similar occurrences

 

 S. 15 UEA
  1. Makindi v. R (1961) EA 327 [previous beatings]
  2. Makin v. AG (N.S.W) (1894) AC 57 [ previous acts not conclusive]
  3. R v. Smith (1915) 11 Cr. App. R. 229[method used]
  4. R. v. Scarrot (1978) 1 ALL E.R. 672[evidence of striking similarity]
  5. Harris v. D.P.P. (1952) A.C 694[ previous acts at same place]
  6. Mood Music Publishing Co. (1976) 1 ALL ER 463[similarity between published and copied work]
  7. R. v. Mustafa (1978) 65 Cr. App. Rep. 26
  8. R. v. Ellis (1961) 1 WLR 1064
WEEK SEVEN  TO EIGHT ADMISSIONS AND CONFESSIONS
Articles

 
  1. Durrand: Confessions in E.A 4 EALJ 70
  2. Williams IC: Modern View of a Confession 30 LQR 293
  3. Loech D.W: Serant – Tortfeasors’ Admissions as Evidence against masters: 55 LQR 490
  4. Good Hert C: Confessions and Causation 75 LQR 464 A.6
ADMISSIONS

 
  1. Kasule v. Uganda (1992-93) HCB 38 [nature of admission]
  2. Gopa & others v. R(1953) 20 EACA 318[Distinction between confession & Admission]
  3. Storle Vs R 6 c and B 231;[rationale for admitting admissions]
  4. Slatterre Vs Pooley 6 m and n 66 [ reason for admitting admissions]
  5. RV Turner [1910] I K. B 346[ rare for a  party to give evidence against themselves]
  6. Broke Bank VS Thompson (1903) CL 344, 352[ positive admissions]
  7. News Trustee VS Huntine [1897] 1 Q B 611[to whom can admissions made
  8. Oliver VS Nauldus Co. (1503) 2 BK 39 CA;[statements without prejudice]
  9. Madelia VS Blex (1905) RED 483[conditional admissions]
  10. Re- Daintrey Experte HOL (1893) 2 QB;[exceptions to without prejudice statements]
  11. Uganda v. Lakot (1986) HCB 27
  12. Uganda v. Marikosajo (1988-90) HCB 53
  13. Kirenga v. Uganda (1969) EA 562
  14. A.G. v. Manilal Patel (1961) E.A. 354
  15. R v. Salim Kaggwa (1961) E.A 153
CONFESSIONS
  1. Swami v. The Emperor (1939)1 ALL ER 396 [meaning of a confession]
  2. Uganda v. Yosamu Mutahanzo (1988-90) HCB 41[unequivocal statement]
  3. Gopa & Others v. R. (1953) 20 EACA 318[distinction btn confession and admission]
  4. Emmanuel Nsubuga v. Uganda (1992-93) HCB 24
  5. Uganda v. Marikosojo (1988-90) HCB 53
  6. Sheriff v. Sethino (1963) EA 239
  7. Uganda v. Ssebuguzi & Others (1988-90) HCB 18
  8. Lubinga v. Uganda (1983) HCB 6
  9. Binuge & others v. Uganda (1992-93) HCB 29
Admissibility of confessions

 

 Proper Authority:
  1. S.24 UEA (See evidence (Amendment) At 1985)
  2. Beronda v. Uganda (1974) EA 46[Rationale for amendment of law, also confessions before a magistrate]
  3. R V Kasule [ definition of a police officer]
  4. Karuma & Others V R[ confession made in custody]
  5. Uganda v. Pantaleo Kalema (1974) HCB 142
  6. Ochou v. R (1956) 23 EACA 586
  7. Emmanuel Nsubuga v. Uganda (1992-93) HCB 24
  8. Uganda v. Marikosojo (1988-90) HCB 53
  9. Alfred Beyeka v. Uganda SC Cr. App. 13/94

Voluntariness:

S. 25, UEA:

  1. Gabura David V Uganda SCCA No. 4 of 2002 [procedure before admitting confession made in custody]
  2. Joseph Kawooya V Uganda SCCA No.59 of 1999[role of court]
  3. Lutwama David V Uganda SCCA NO. 4 OF 2003[effect of noncompliance with police standing orders]
  4. RV Sykes [ meaning of voluntariness]
  5. DDP v. Pinglin (1973) 3 ALL ER 175[ fear or prejudice]
  6. R V Ibrahim[ statement made with fear, prejudice or advantage]
  7. Njuguna & Others v. R (1954)21 EACA 316[ need for proof of voluntariness]
  8. Jackson Kitutu V Uganda [1976] HCB 28;[ Onus to prove Voluntariness];
  9. Commissioner of Customs & Excise Harz & Others (1967) 1 ALL ER 177 [meaning of inducement]
  10. Uganda v. Ewagu & Anor (1978) HCB 6
  11. Uganda v. Smith Opon Acak and Ahmed Ogeny, Criminal Session case 2777/91.
  12. Abasi v. Uganda, Cr. App 34/89; (1993) 111 KALR76
  13. Uganda v. Pantaleo Kalema & Anor (1974) HCB 142
  14. Dekinanon v. R (1969) AC 20

Effect of Inducements and Threats:

  1. Bagaga Peter V Uganda SCCA No.6 of 2002[ effect of beatings prior to making statement]
  2. S. 26 UEA
  3. R. v. Okello 9[1915l]2 U.L.R 169
  4. Dall v. R[1962]EA9
  5. Mwangi v. R[1954]EA
  6. R v. Alikisi[1919]2 U.L.R 323
  7. R. v. Zavechas [1970]1 W.L.R. 516
  8. R. v Ibrahim [1914]AC 599
  9. R. v. Movanha [1922]9 EALR 12
  10. Uganda v. Doyi Wabwire Kyoyo (1976) HCB 212[procedure of recording confession]
  11. John Kuka v. Uganda, Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 1/1992
  12. Alfred Beyaka v. Uganda SC. Criminal Appeal No. 13/1994

Effect of Deception and Tricks:

  1. S.27 UEA
  2. B. Wathiomba [1961] E.A. 521
  3. Mayinda v. R[1959] EA 686
  4. R v. Voisin

Retracted and repudiated Confessions:

  1. Tuwoamoi v. Uganda [1967] E.A 84[ retracted and repudiated confessions]
  2. Uganda v. Muganyi & Anor (1994)2 KALR 76[ Confession as evidence of common intention]
  3. Njuguna v. R[1954]21 E.A.C.A. 31
  4. Uganda v. Ewagu & Anor [1976] HCB 6
  5. Zenon Javuru v. Uganda (1992-93) HCB 7
  6. Uganda v. Moses Alioni Criminal Session Case No. 154/92
  7. Uganda v. Kamusini & Anor (1976) HCB 159
  8. Bampanyiki v. R [1957] EA 473
  9. Wong Kan – Mang[1980] E.C 247, [1979]1 ER 939
  10. R v. Watson [Watson[1980]1 W.L.R 991
  11. Uganda v. Akai S/o Eloloyi (1979)HCB 8
  12. Oyat v. Uganda (1988-90)HCB25
  13. Uganda v. Esta Nalukwago & Ors (1977)HCB302
  14. Alfred Beyaka v. Uganda, S.C. Criminal Appeal No. 13/1994
  15. Kasule v. Uganda (1992-93) HCB 38
  16. Andrea Isingoma v. Uganda(1`989) KALR 26
  17. Swami & Ors v. 12. (1974) EA 373

Confessions against Co-accused:

  1. S.28 UEA
  2. R. v. Wadingombe (1941)8 E.A.C.A 33
  3. Uganda v. Onen (1991) HCB 7
  4. Uganda v. Ssebuguzi & Ors (1988-90)HCB 18
  5. Abdu Kasujja v.Uganda, Cr. Appeal No.598/1966
  6. Uganda v. Kamusini and Anor (1976) HCB 159
  7. Karaya v. R [1953]20 EACA 324
  8. R. v. Zakaliya [1919]2 U.L.R. 305
  9. Wamiko v. Uganda [1966] E.A 67
  10. Gopa & Others v. R (1953)20 EACA 318
  11. Kyabanamaize v. R[1962] E.A 309
  12. Uganda v. Sebuguzi & Ors [1980-1990) HCB 19
  13. Musa Luinda v.R [1960) EA 470
  14. Uganda v. Akai S/o Eloloyi & Ors[1979] HCB 8
  15. Kalyowa Moses v. Uganda (1989) KALR 79
  16. Swai & Ors v. R. (1974) EA 373
  17. Batala v. Uganda (1974) EA 402
  18. Uganda v. Kayemba [1983] HCB 52
  19. Mubiru v. A.g.[1971]11 U.R. 4
WEEK NINE TO TEN HEARSAY EVIDENCE
Reading Ss 57, 58, 59 UEA.
  1. Elliott and Phipson (12th Edn) pp. 239 -301
  2. Peter Murphy & John Beaumont pp: 198 – 259.
  3. Peter Murphy pp. 165 – 283

ARTICLES:

1.        A-L. GoodHart: The Scope of the rule of Against Hearsay, the law of Quarterly Review (LQR) Vol. 72 pp 91-116

2.       Exceptions to the Hearsay Rule – LQR Vol. 80 No. 360, October 1964, pp 451-485

3.       Peter Duff: Hearsay Issues: A Scottish Perspective Crim. L.R. 2005, Jul, 527-547

4.      Morris pp. 3-61

5.       Nokes pp. 261- 370

6.      Cross pp. 380 – 459
Meaning & Rationale for the Hearsay Rule

 

 Sections 57, 58, 59 UEA

CASES

1.        Apudhan L’Omodoi v. AG. C.S. 776/1990 or (1993)1 KALR 77[possibility of different or false meanings.

2.       Richard Ogola v. Uganda, Cr. App. NO. 28/1992, (1992)III KALR 65

3.       Okumu & Sons v. AG HC.C.S. No. 505/1990(1993)V KALR

4.      Kasule v. Uganda (1992-1993) HCB 38

5.       Richard Ogola v. Uganda, Criminal App No. 28/1992, (1992) III, KALR 65[Inability to establish veracity of statement.

6.      Okumu and Sons v. AG. H.C.C.S. No. 505/1990, (1993) V KALR [Likelihood of different interpretations]

7.       Dirisa Musisi v. Sietco (U) Ltd (1993) III KLR, [Statement by another person other than witness]

8.      Chaudrasekera v. R[1937] A.C 220[statement verbal, written, oral]

9.      Subramanian v. Public Prosecutor [1956]1 WLR 965[statement introduced for the purpose of establishing the truth.

10.    Lutaaya v. A.G [1992]1V KALR 147[statement made by a person who is not before court

The Rule Against Hearsay Evidence:

  1. R. v. Gibson[1937]18 Q.B.537[meaning and operation of the hearsay rule]
  2. Sparkes v. R[1964] A.C. 964[ Strict application of the rule]
  3. R. v. Turner [1957] 65 Cr. App. R 78[confession by person not called as witness hearsay]
  4. Warwa S/o Kilongo v. R[1950] 17 EACA 152[assertion of truthfulness of statement]

Exceptions to the Rule (General) (S.30)

Inability to procure attendance of a witness without undue delay & Expense]

  1. Thornhill v. Thornhill [1965] EA 268[ undue delay and expense]
  2. Taki v. R[1961]E.A 206 [ undue delay & Expense]
  3. Commissioner of Customs & Excise v. Panachand [19616] E.A. 303[modern approach Discretion of the Court:]

Dying Declarations:

  1. S. 30(a) UEA
  2. Uganda v. Katushabe (1988-90) HCS 59[distinction between common law position & Evidence Act].
  3. Uganda v. Mugisha & Anor [1991]HCB 25[common law position]
  4. Swami v. Emperor [1939]1 All ER 396[ nature of statement]
  5. Uganda v. Nyabenda (1972) 11 ULR 19[proof of death]
  6. R V Pithe [competence to make a dying declaration]
  7. Uganda v. Tomas Omukono (1977) HCB 61 [competence to make a dying declaration]
  8. R. v. Woodlock[1789]1 Leach 500[ rationale for dying declaration]
  9. Waugh v. R [1950] A.C. 203 [ inadmissibility of incomplete statements]
  10. Katisti, Sebugwawo v. Uganda Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 7/1987 (1990-90) KALR 116 [whether repetition amounts to corroboration]
  11. R v. Kabatereine [1946] 13 EACA 164[ proximity]
  12. Marie Mande v. Republic [1965] EA. 193[weight of ambiguous and uncertain statements]
  13. Daki v. R[1959] EA 931 [weight of ambiguous and uncertain statements]
  14. Jasunga v. R[1954]21 EACA 331[relevance of circumstances of making statement]
  15. Mbinga v. Uganda [1965]EA 71[conduct amounting to corroboration]
  16. Uganda v. Kibwani[1972] 11 EACA 28 (1972) ULR 29 [ whether corroboration is mandatory]
  17. R. v. Eligu & Anor [1943]10 E.A.C.A. 90[ judicial rather than legal requirement for corroboration]
  18. Uganda v. Anzima [1988-90)HCB 55[need for courts to be cautious]
  19. Uganda v. Epachu & Anor (1976) HCB 267
  20. Munnu v. Uganda (1988-90) HCB1
  21. Uganda v. Francis Rutaro (1976) HCB
  22. R v. Byamungu [1951] 18 EACA 233
  23. R. v. Daki [1960] EA 34
  24. Phostin Kyobwongye v. Uganda, Cr. App No. 35/89 (Unreported)
  25. Terkabi v. Uganda [1975] E.A 60
  26. Uganda v. Oyaka [1991]HCB 11
  27. Uganda v. John Ochieng (1992-93) HCB 80
  28. Tindigwihura v. Uganda, Criminal Appeal No. 9/19987
  29. Uganda v. G.W. Simbwa, CRI. Appeal No. 37/9

Statements made in Ordinary Course of Business:

  1. S.30(b) UEA
  2. Yeko Mukasa v. AG. (1993) !V KALR8[Statement in course of business]
  3. Nangawa v. Dharnappa (1897) 23 Bombay 63[meaning of course of business]
  4. Ramadhan Ismail v. The Crown[1949]7 ZLR 45
  5. R. v. Magandazi [1914] ULR 108

Statements against interest of Maker:

  1. Peaceable D’Uncle v. Watson (1811) 128 ER 232[statement against interest of maker]
  2. Dias v. R[1927]3 ULR 214[knowledge of consequences]
  3. Tucker v. Oldbury Urban District Council [1912]2 K.B. 317[rationale]
  4. Taylor v. Witham[1876]3 3 Ch. D. 605
  5. Federal Rules of Evidence [U.S.] Rule 804

Pedigree Declarations:

  1. S.30(e)
  2. Haines v. Guthrie [1884]13 QBD 818[statements in will or deed on family affairs]
  3. Good right, D. Stevens 4/S. Moss (1772) 2 Cowp. 591

Private rights & Family Affairs:

S. 30 (g), 30(f)

Public Rights and Public Records

  1. SS. 30(d), 34,  37, 38, 39,40 and 41
  2. Ndola v. R[1926] 10 KLR 11
  3. Dalka & Others v. Patel & Others [1960] EA. 38
  4. Chandria v. Rep. [1960] EA 246
  5. Ramji v. A.G (Kenya) [1956] 23 EACA 20

Articles:

  1. Cross: The Scope of the Rule Against Hearsay:

        72 LQR 91

2. Furness – Smith: hearsay and Res Gestae 67 LQR 223.

3. Furness:  Rejection of Hearsay 5 LQR 265

4. Hindley: Medical Evidence 55 LQR 152
WEEK  ELEVEN EVIDENCE OF OPINION:
 
  1. SS. 43 – 49 UEA
  2. Morris pp 90 96
  3. Cross pp 360 – 379
  4. Nokes pp 160 -183

Who is an Expert?

  1. S. 43 UEA
  2. R. v. Gatheru [1954]21 EACA 384[ definition of an expert]
  3. Ahmed v. R[1957] EA 523[competence of an expert]
  4. R v. Silverlock [1894] [ expert through experience]
  5. Odindo v. R [1969] EA 12[educational background]
  6. Uganda v. Ogwang, Cr. App NO. 43/78 [experience of an expert]
  7. R v. Loake[1911]7 Cr. App. R 71[ expert outside field of activity]
  8. Walusimbi v. Standard Bank Ltd [1981] HCB 67[ effect of expert opinion and the role of court]
  9. Musisi Dirisa v. Sietco (U) Ltd [1993] 1V KALR 67[time of making opinion]
  10. Uganda v. Monoko & Others [1985] HCB 16[Specific training]
  11. Uganda v. Sulaimani Ndibarema & Anor [1982] HCB 4
  12. Nakawuma and Others v. Uganda [1972] ULR3 [experience & competence]
  13. Uganda v. Bampara [1991] HCB 16[ expertise in field of study]
  14. Nsubuga V Uganda [relevance of expert opinion in sexual offences]
  15. Nazir Ahmed v. Republic [1964] EA 345[corroboration]
  16. Andrea Isingoma v. Uganda (1989) KALR 26[[  proof of opinion]
  17. Patrick Akol V Uganda [reasons must be given for expert opinion]
  18. Rwamunda V Uganda SCCrim App No. 6/96[ necessity for expert opinion]
  19. Musisi Dirisa & 30 Others v. Sietco (U) Ltd (1993) 1V KALR 67 [time of making opinion]
  20. Ajami v. controller of Customs [1954]1 WLR 1045
  21. Rajab v. R [1957] EA 395
  22. Uganda v. Ntuk [1977] HCB 103
  23. Sifuna v. Uganda, Cr. App. No. 13/78
  24. Uganda v. Zikolare (1988-90) HCB 13
  25. Joseph Rujumba v. Uganda (1992-93) HCB 36
  26. Mugisha v. Uganda (1976) HCB 246

Other Cases

  1. R. v. Smith (Stanley) (1979)1 W.L.R. 1445
  2. Onyango v. Republic [1969] EA 362
  3. Salum v. Republic [1964] EA 126
  4. Hussein v. R[1957] EA 884
  5. Sutton v. R[1957] EA 812
  6. C.D de Sourza v. B.R. Sharma [1956] 26 K.L.R. 41
  7. Uganda v. Kulabako Night Jennifer, HC. Criminal Appeal NO. 6/1993
  8. Abdu Ngobi v. Uganda, supreme court Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1991
  9. Uganda v. Mugisha & anor (1991) HCB 25
  10. Mugisha v. Uganda (1996) HCB 2
  11. James Katende & 2 others v. Uganda Railways Corporation, H.C.C.S. No. 1464/86
  12. Francis Ocoke v. Uganda (1992-93) HCB 80
  13. John Rukakana v. Uganda (1991) ULSLR 80
  14. Joseph Rujumba v. Uganda (1992-93) HCB 36
  15. Sehastino Hakizimana v. Uganda, S.C. Criminal Appeal NO. 29/1992
  16. Bruno Kikambi v. Masaka Municipal council HC.C. Appeal No. 62/1992

REFERENCES:

  1. Peter Murphy; pp. 284 – 307
  2. Peter Murphy & John Beaumont pp: 287 – 309

ARTICLES:

  1. Hindley: Medical Evidence 55 LQR 152
  2. Shah & Others v. New Africa Press[1970] EA 352
  3. Case v. Rugur [1970] EA 55
WEEK  TWELVE EVIDENCE OF CHARACTER
Reading
  1. Murphy & John Beaumont pp: 100-144
  2. Peter Murphy p: 107 – 145
  3. SS. 50 – 53, 152, 136, UEA
  4. Morris pp 97 – 106
  5. Cross pp 292 – 344
  6. Nokes pp 129 – 159.
  7. Elliott and Phipson pp 204 – 236

Character in Criminal Cases:

  1. Ss. 52, 62 UEA
  2. Settumba v. R[1957] EA 35[relevance of good character]
  3. R. v. Rowton (1965) 10 Cox 25[evidence of cross section of society]
  4. R v. Bellis [1966] 1 W.L.R. 234[effect of good character]
  5. Maxwell v. D.P.P. [1935] A.C. 309[admissibility of bad character]
  6. Stirland v. D.P.P. [1944] A.C. 315[rules relating to admissibility of bad character]
  7. R.v. Rodley [1913]3 K.B. 468[previous conviction]
  8. Katwe v. Uganda [1964] EA 477[ imputation of bad character on witnesses]
  9. Murdock v. Taylor [1965]1 All E.R. 406[evidence against co-accused]
  10. R. v. Bruce (1975)1 W.L.R. 1252[meaning of ‘ evidence against’]
  11. R V Fisher[ previous convictions]
  12. R. Bulterwasser [1947]2 All ER 415
  13. R v. Davis (1975) 1.W.L.R. 345
  14. R v. Lovett (1973) 1.W.L.R. 241
  15. Royston v. R 1953) 20 EACA 147
  16. Ali Bin Hassan Alias Ali Mgwengwe[1960] EA 121 Mugo v. R[1960] EA 124
  17. Mugo v. R [1960]EA 124
  18. R v. Mukasa & Mukiibi[1947]6 ULR 165
  19. R v. Winfield (1939)4 All E.R 144
  20. Rex. V. turner (1944 30 Cr. App. R 18
  21. Ndahura v. Uganda (1992-1993) HCB 35
  22. Samwiri Mugabi v. Uganda (1986) HCB 11
  23. Uganda v. Fenekasi Oyuko (1973) 1 ULR 35
  24. Uganda v. silver Nabugemu, Criminal Revision 13/90

Character in Civil Cases:

  1. Ss. 50- 53 UEA
  2. Walters v. Sunday Pictorial Newspaper [1961]2 All E.R. 758[mere suspicion and rumours]
  3. Goodry v. Oldhams Press[1967]1 Q.B. 333
  4. Figueredo v. Editor, Sunday Nation & Others [1968] EA 501[cross examination]
  5. Scott v. Sampson (1882)8 Q.B.D. 491[character and measure of damages]
  6. Hobbs v. Tinoign & Co. Ltd (1929) KB I
  7. Hollington v. Hewthorn & co. [1943] KB 58[ relevance of conviction in a civil matter]
  8. Shah & Others v. New Africa Press [1970] EA 352
  9. Case v. Ruguru [1970) EA, 55

Articles:

  1. Cross: Imputations on the Prosecutions Character 75 LQR 176
  2. Moore E: Exclusion of Evidence of Character (1970) CLJ 28
   

 

  1. Assignment Explanations

Evidence is going to be an “oral presentation” emphasis class in which students will be required to conduct mock cross and direct examinations.  The tutorials will be dedicated to preparing the students for a cross mock and direct and will also assess the students in this exercise.  The student’s performance in the cross mock and direct should make up at least 15 points out of the 30 coursework marks.   Students can also be assessed based on their class participation and on a short written assessment. 

If for any reason a person fails to attend to the Oral Advocacy and Rhetoric exercises, advance notice should be given to the faculty Administrator and the Teaching Assistant a week in advance. All medical grounds should be certified by the University Health Unit.

  1. Assessment Criteria

Course work                       30%.

Final Exam                           70% (LIMITED OPEN BOOK – Reading List and Evidence Act allowed)

  1. Faith in Teaching

Deuteronomy 17:6, “On the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses the one who is to die shall be put to death; a person shall not be put to death on the evidence of one witness.” This is a requirement that direct testimony, corroborated by other reliable testimony, be the standard of admissible evidence in capital cases.

  1. Bibliography

Listed in the Above required Readings

Uganda Christian University Bachelor of Laws Courses For Year 1

LLB 1

Contracts I

Introducing Law

Criminal Law

Constitutional History

Uganda Christian University Bachelor of Laws Courses For Year 2

LLB 2

Foundations of Land Law

Nature and History of Torts

Administrative Processes

Legal Methods

Law of Sales

Uganda Christian University Bachelor of Laws Courses For Year 3


LLB 3

Jurisprudence II

Business Associations I

Evidence I

Criminal Procedure

International Law 1

Family Law

Uganda Christian University Bachelor of Laws Courses For Year 4


LLB 4

Civil Procedure I

Clinical Legal Education I

Intellectual Property I

International Humanitarian Law

Oil & Gas  Law

Labour Law 1

Alternative Dispute Resolution

ICT Law and Policy

Environmental Law and Policy

Gender & the Law

[button link=”https://ugfacts.net/list-law-schools-uganda/” bg_color=”red”]List of Law Schools in Uganda[/button]

Sponsored Links