Arvind Patel v Uganda [2003] UGSC 35 (26 October 2003)

{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\uc1\deff38\stshfdbch0\stshfloch38\stshfhich0\stshfbi0\deflang1033\deflangfe1033{\fonttbl{\f0\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}Times New Roman;} {\f2\fmodern\fcharset0\fprq1{\*\panose 02070309020205020404}Courier New;}{\f35\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0604030504040204}Tahoma;}{\f37\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0506020202030204}Arial Narrow;} {\f38\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02050604050505020204}Bookman Old Style;}{\f39\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02040502050405020303}Georgia;}{\f273\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times New Roman CE;}{\f274\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times New Roman Cyr;} {\f276\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek;}{\f277\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times New Roman Tur;}{\f278\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times New Roman (Hebrew);}{\f279\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times New Roman (Arabic);} {\f280\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic;}{\f281\froman\fcharset163\fprq2 Times New Roman (Vietnamese);}{\f293\fmodern\fcharset238\fprq1 Courier New CE;}{\f294\fmodern\fcharset204\fprq1 Courier New Cyr;} {\f296\fmodern\fcharset161\fprq1 Courier New Greek;}{\f297\fmodern\fcharset162\fprq1 Courier New Tur;}{\f298\fmodern\fcharset177\fprq1 Courier New (Hebrew);}{\f299\fmodern\fcharset178\fprq1 Courier New (Arabic);} {\f300\fmodern\fcharset186\fprq1 Courier New Baltic;}{\f301\fmodern\fcharset163\fprq1 Courier New (Vietnamese);}{\f623\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Tahoma CE;}{\f624\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2 Tahoma Cyr;}{\f626\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2 Tahoma Greek;} {\f627\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Tahoma Tur;}{\f628\fswiss\fcharset177\fprq2 Tahoma (Hebrew);}{\f629\fswiss\fcharset178\fprq2 Tahoma (Arabic);}{\f630\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Tahoma Baltic;}{\f631\fswiss\fcharset163\fprq2 Tahoma (Vietnamese);} {\f632\fswiss\fcharset222\fprq2 Tahoma (Thai);}{\f643\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Arial Narrow CE;}{\f644\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2 Arial Narrow Cyr;}{\f646\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2 Arial Narrow Greek;}{\f647\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Arial Narrow Tur;} {\f650\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Arial Narrow Baltic;}{\f653\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Bookman Old Style CE;}{\f654\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Bookman Old Style Cyr;}{\f656\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Bookman Old Style Greek;} {\f657\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Bookman Old Style Tur;}{\f660\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Bookman Old Style Baltic;}{\f663\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Georgia CE;}{\f664\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Georgia Cyr;}{\f666\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Georgia Greek;} {\f667\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Georgia Tur;}{\f670\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Georgia Baltic;}}{\colortbl;\red0\green0\blue0;\red0\green0\blue255;\red0\green255\blue255;\red0\green255\blue0;\red255\green0\blue255;\red255\green0\blue0; \red255\green255\blue0;\red255\green255\blue255;\red0\green0\blue128;\red0\green128\blue128;\red0\green128\blue0;\red128\green0\blue128;\red128\green0\blue0;\red128\green128\blue0;\red128\green128\blue128;\red192\green192\blue192;}{\stylesheet{ \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f38\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext0 Normal;}{\*\cs10 \additive \ssemihidden Default Paragraph Font;}{\* \ts11\tsrowd\trftsWidthB3\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3\trcbpat1\trcfpat1\tscellwidthfts0\tsvertalt\tsbrdrt\tsbrdrl\tsbrdrb\tsbrdrr\tsbrdrdgl\tsbrdrdgr\tsbrdrh\tsbrdrv \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\loch\f38\hich\af0\dbch\af0\cgrid\langnp1024\langfenp1024 \snext11 \ssemihidden Normal Table;}{\s15\qj \li0\ri0\sl-490\slmult0 \nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f38\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext15 Style1;}{\s16\qj \li0\ri0\sl-511\slmult0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f38\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext16 Style2;}{\s17\qj \li0\ri0\sl-487\slmult0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f38\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext17 Style3;}{\s18\qj \fi744\li0\ri0\sl-492\slmult0 \nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f38\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext18 Style4;}{\s19\qc \li0\ri0\sl-324\slmult0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f38\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext19 Style5;}{\s20\qr \li0\ri0\sl-492\slmult0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f38\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext20 Style6;}{\s21\qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f38\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext21 Style7;}{\s22\ql \li0\ri0\sl-410\slmult0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f38\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext22 Style8;}{ \s23\qj \li0\ri0\sl-488\slmult0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f38\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext23 Style9;}{\s24\qj \fi-422\li0\ri0\sl-485\slmult0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f38\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext24 Style10;}{\s25\qc \li0\ri0\sl-422\slmult0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f38\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext25 Style11;}{ \s26\qj \li0\ri0\sl-272\slmult0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f38\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext26 Style12;}{\s27\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f38\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext27 Style13;}{\s28\qj \li0\ri0\sl-312\slmult0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f38\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext28 Style14;}{ \s29\ql \li0\ri0\sl-326\slmult0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f38\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext29 Style15;}{\s30\qc \li0\ri0\sl-283\slmult0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f38\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext30 Style16;}{\s31\ql \fi317\li0\ri0\sl-288\slmult0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f38\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext31 Style17;}{ \s32\qj \fi-677\li0\ri0\sl-480\slmult0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f38\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext32 Style18;}{\*\cs33 \additive \b\f0\fs24 \sbasedon10 Font Style20;}{\*\cs34 \additive \b\f39\fs22 \sbasedon10 Font Style21;}{\*\cs35 \additive \b\i\f38\fs22 \sbasedon10 Font Style22;}{\*\cs36 \additive \b\f0\fs30 \sbasedon10 Font Style23;}{\*\cs37 \additive \i\f0\fs24 \sbasedon10 Font Style24;}{\*\cs38 \additive \b\f37\fs26 \sbasedon10 Font Style25;} {\*\cs39 \additive \b\f38\fs26 \sbasedon10 Font Style26;}{\*\cs40 \additive \f35\fs24 \sbasedon10 Font Style27;}{\*\cs41 \additive \f0\fs26\expnd2\expndtw10 \sbasedon10 Font Style28;}{\*\cs42 \additive \b\i\f0\fs30 \sbasedon10 Font Style29;}{\*\cs43 \additive \i\f35\fs32\expnd2\expndtw10 \sbasedon10 Font Style30;}{\*\cs44 \additive \b\i\f0\fs24\expnd2\expndtw10 \sbasedon10 Font Style31;}{\*\cs45 \additive \f0\fs26 \sbasedon10 Font Style32;}{\*\cs46 \additive \b\f2\fs26 \sbasedon10 Font Style33;}{\* \cs47 \additive \b\f0\fs32\expnd-6\expndtw-30 \sbasedon10 Font Style34;}{\s48\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4320\tqr\tx8640\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f38\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext48 \styrsid15219814 header;}{ \s49\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4320\tqr\tx8640\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f38\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext49 \styrsid15219814 footer;}}{\*\latentstyles\lsdstimax156\lsdlockeddef0}{\*\listtable {\list\listtemplateid567468396\listsimple{\listlevel\levelnfc0\levelnfcn0\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelold\levelspace0\levelindent710{\leveltext\'02\'00.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\f0\fbias0 }{\listname ;}\listid1254246284}} {\*\listoverridetable{\listoverride\listid1254246284\listoverridecount0\ls1}}{\*\rsidtbl \rsid1988339\rsid15219814\rsid16452178}{\*\generator Microsoft Word 11.0.5604;}{\info{\author owner}{\operator owner}{\creatim\yr2008\mo2\dy20\hr17\min43} {\revtim\yr2008\mo2\dy20\hr17\min49}{\version3}{\edmins6}{\nofpages11}{\nofwords3370}{\nofchars19213}{\nofcharsws22538}{\vern24689}}\paperw11905\paperh16837\margl1625\margr1625\margt1593 \facingp\widowctrl\ftnbj\aenddoc\noxlattoyen\expshrtn\noultrlspc\dntblnsbdb\nospaceforul\hyphcaps0\horzdoc\dghspace120\dgvspace120\dghorigin1701\dgvorigin1984\dghshow0\dgvshow3\jcompress\viewkind1\viewscale148\viewzk2\nolnhtadjtbl\rsidroot15219814 \fet0 {\*\ftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f38\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid16452178 \chftnsep \par }}{\*\ftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f38\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid16452178 \chftnsepc \par }}{\*\aftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f38\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid16452178 \chftnsep \par }}{\*\aftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f38\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid16452178 \chftnsepc \par }}\sectd \sbknone\linex0\colsx60\sectdefaultcl\sftnbj {\footerl \pard\plain \s22\qr \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f38\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\field{\*\fldinst {\cs41\f0\fs26\insrsid16452178 PAGE}}{\fldrslt { \cs41\f0\fs26\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof\insrsid16452178 4}}}{\cs41\f0\fs26\insrsid16452178 \par }}{\footerr \pard\plain \s22\qr \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f38\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs41\f0\fs26\lang7177\langfe1033\langnp7177\insrsid15219814 }{ \cs41\f0\fs26\lang7177\langfe1033\langnp7177\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 \par }}{\*\pnseclvl1\pnucrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl2\pnucltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl3\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl4\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta )}} {\*\pnseclvl5\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl6\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl7\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl8 \pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl9\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}\pard\plain \s19\qc \li0\ri0\sb67\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15219814 \f38\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs39\b\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA}{\cs39\b\f0\insrsid15219814 \par }{\cs34\b\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF UGANDA }{\cs34\b\f0\insrsid15219814 \par }{\cs34\b\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 AT MENGO \par }\pard\plain \s26\qc \li0\ri0\sb226\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15219814 \f38\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs35\b\i\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 (CORAM: ODER, KAROKORA, MULENGA, KANYEIHAMBA, AND KATO JJ. S. C.) \par }\pard\plain \s21\qc \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15219814 \f38\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 \par }\pard \s21\qc \li0\ri0\sb58\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15219814 {\cs34\b\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 36 OF}{\cs34\b\f0\insrsid15219814 }{\cs34\b\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 2002 \par }\pard \s21\ql \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15219814 {\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 \par }\pard \s21\qc \li0\ri0\sb211\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15219814 {\cs34\b\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 ARVIND PATEL ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::APPELLANT \par }\pard \s21\qc \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15219814 {\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 \par }\pard \s21\qc \li0\ri0\sb115\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15219814 {\cs34\b\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 AND \par }\pard \s21\ql \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15219814 {\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 \par }\pard \s21\qc \li0\ri0\sb72\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15219814 {\cs34\b\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 UGANDA:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::RESPONDENT \par }\pard\plain \s31\ql \fi317\li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15219814 \f38\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 \par \par \par \par }\pard \s31\qj \li0\ri0\sb67\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15219814 {\cs35\b\i\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 (Appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Uganda a t Kampala (Mukasa-Kikonyogo. D. C. J, Mpagi-Bahigeine and Kitumba,}{\cs35\b\i\f0\insrsid15219814 JJA}{\cs35\b\i\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 ) dated 31. 1. 2002, in Criminal Appeal No. 27 of 2001) \par }\pard\plain \s19\ql \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15219814 \f38\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 \par }\pard \s19\qc \li0\ri0\sb53\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15219814 {\cs39\b\f0\ul\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT \par }\pard\plain \s15\qj \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15219814 \f38\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 \par \par }\pard \s15\qj \li0\ri0\sb53\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15219814 {\cs36\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 This is a third appeal. The appellant, Arvind Patel, was convicted with another person, Andrew Okello, n ow deceased, of conspiracy to murder, contrary to section 201 of the Penal Code, by the Chief Magistrate's Court of Kampala, and sentenced to five years imprisonment. \par }{\cs36\f0\insrsid15219814\charrsid15219814 \par }\pard \s15\qj \li0\ri0\sb77\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15219814 {\cs36\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 The brief facts of the case are that the appellant and one Andrew Okello between March an d April 1998 at the Railways Goods shed conspired to murder one Rahuel}{\cs36\b\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 }{\cs36\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 Patel alias Bhikhu Patel. The two engaged the services of Sgt. Nsubuga Frank, PW2, Richard Jumbo, PW3, and Andrew Odeke, PW4 to achieve their purpose. \par }\pard \s15\qj \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15219814 {\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 \par }\pard \s15\qj \li0\ri0\sb235\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15219814 {\cs36\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 However, PW2, PW3 and PW4 withdre w from the plan and instead reported the mater to the police. Thereafter, the police gave PW3 and PW4 recording machines by which each of the recorded conversations with the appellant regarding the conspiracy. They returned the recorded audiotapes to the police. \par }\pard \s15\qj \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15219814 {\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 \par \par }\pard \s15\qj \li0\ri0\sb10\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15219814 {\cs36\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 As a result of the report and the recordings, the appellant and Andrew Okello were arrested and charge with conspiracy to murder. On 21.8.1998, when the case was placed before Ruhinda, the Chief Magistrate of Buganda Road, Andrew Okello, who was a ccused No. 2, changed his plea and pleaded guilty. The charge and the facts were read to him, which he admitted. He was convicted on his own plea of guilty, and sentenced to a fine of shs. 500,000/= or six month's imprisonment. He opted to pay the fine. H e died one month later, before the appellant's trial commenced.}{\cs36\f0\insrsid15219814 }{\cs36\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 The appellant was tried alone. In his defence, the appellant denied participation in the conspiracy. He put up a defence of alibi and said that the prosecution witnesses had grudges against him . He claimed that the grudges were due to indebtedness to him by the prosecution witnesses who were unwilling to pay him and a vendetta between him and the complainant over the Swamirayan Temple in Kampala. \par }\pard \s15\qj \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15219814 {\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 \par }\pard \s15\qj \li0\ri0\sb10\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15219814 {\cs36\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 The trial court rejected the defence ev idence and believed the prosecution witnesses. She found the appellant guilty and convicted him as charged, sentencing him as we have already mentioned. The trial of the appellant in the magistrate's court was conducted by three magistrates. The record sh ows that Mr. Ruhinda Asaph Ntegye, Chief Magistrate, was the first magistrate to handle the case. He took the plea of the appellant, on 22}{\cs36\f0\super\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 nd}{\cs36\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 May 1998. On 5}{ \cs36\f0\super\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 th}{\cs36\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 June 1998, the case was mentioned before the same chief magistrate. On 8}{\cs36\f0\super\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 th}{ \cs36\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 June 1998 Andrew Okello's plea was taken and he denied the charge and both accused persons were granted bail by the same chief magistrate. The case was again mentioned on 22}{ \cs36\f0\super\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 nd }{\cs36\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 June 1998, 27th July 1998 and 21}{\cs36\f0\super\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 st}{\cs36\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 August 1998. On 26}{ \cs36\f0\super\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 th }{\cs36\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 August 1998, when both accused persons again app eared before the same chief magistrate, Andrew Okello changed his plea to guilty. The facts were read to him, which he admitted and he was convicted and sentenced as has already been mentioned in this judgment.}{\cs36\f0\insrsid15219814 }{ \cs36\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 On 5}{\cs36\f0\super\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 th}{\cs36\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 October, Mr. Asaph Ntegye Ruhinda disqualified himself from hearing and withdrew from the case, following allegation of bias by the appellant. \par }\pard \s15\qj \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15219814 {\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 \par }\pard \s15\qj \li0\ri0\sb10\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15219814 {\cs36\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 It appears that on the same date another magistrate, Mr. Isingoma, Magistrate Grade 1, took over the hearing o f the case and recorded the evidence of the first prosecution witness. Anthony Ndidde, PWl on 19}{\cs36\f0\super\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 th}{\cs36\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 October 1998, the appellant appeared before a magistrate whose names and other particulars are not recorded. The appellant's bail was renewed on new terms and conditions. \par }\pard \s15\qj \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15219814 {\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 \par }\pard \s15\qj \li0\ri0\sb5\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15219814 {\cs36\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 On 3}{\cs36\f0\super\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 rd}{\cs36\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 November 1998, another Grade I Magistrate, Ms. Tibulya took over the trial of the case and recorded the evidence of Sgt. Nsubuga Frank (PW2). Thereafter she conducted the trial up to the end. She recorded the evidence of the rest of the witnesses who testified in the case. \par }\pard \s15\qj \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15219814 {\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 \par }\pard \s15\qj \li0\ri0\sb5\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15219814 {\cs36\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 The learned trial magistrate rejected the defence evidence and believed the prosecution witnesses. She found the appellant guilty and convicted him as charged, sentencing him as we have already mentioned. The appe llant's appealed to the High Court and the Court of Appeal were dismissed. Hence this appeal, which came to this Court on a certificate of the Court of Appeal that the matter raises a question or questions of law of great public or general importance, und er the provisions of section (5) of one Judicature statutes 1996. \par }\pard \s15\qj \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15219814 {\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 \par }\pard \s15\qj \li0\ri0\sb5\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15219814 {\cs36\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 The Memorandum of Appeal to this Court originally contained four grounds, but the last two were abandoned at the hearing of the appeal. The remaining two grounds are that: \par {\pntext\pard\plain\s32 \cs36\charrsid15219814 \hich\af0\dbch\af0\loch\f0 1.\tab}}\pard\plain \s32\qj \fi-710\li1085\ri0\sb494\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\tx1085{\*\pn \pnlvlbody\ilvl0\ls1\pnrnot0\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent710 {\pntxta .}} \faauto\ls1\rin0\lin1085\itap0\pararsid15219814 \f38\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs36\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 The learned Justice of Appeal erred in law to hold that the trial was proper when it was conducted by 3 trial Magistrates in contravention of S.142 of the Magistrates Courts Act. \par {\pntext\pard\plain\s32 \cs36\charrsid15219814 \hich\af0\dbch\af0\loch\f0 2.\tab}}\pard \s32\qj \fi-710\li1085\ri0\sb504\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\tx1085{\*\pn \pnlvlbody\ilvl0\ls1\pnrnot0\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent710 {\pntxta .}} \faauto\ls1\rin0\lin1085\itap0\pararsid15219814 {\cs36\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 The learned Justices of Appeal erred in law in taking into account the plea of the first accused person in upholding the conviction against the appellant. \par }\pard\plain \s15\qj \li360\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin360\itap0\pararsid15219814 \f38\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 \par }\pard \s15\qj \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15219814 {\cs36\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 Mr. Stephen Mubiru represented the appellant before us. His argument on ground one of the appeal was based on the provisions of section 142(1) of the Magistrate's Courts Act, 1970(MCA) and the interpretation made by the Court of Appeal for East Africa of section 196(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code of Tanzania in }{\cs42\i\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 Eustance v Rep. (1970) EA 393. }{\cs36\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 The Tanzanian Statute was worded in identical terms with section 142(1) of our MCA, which provides: \par }\pard\plain \s20\qj \li0\ri0\sb77\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15219814 \f38\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs42\i\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 "142 (1) Whenever any magistrate, after having heard and recorded the whole or any part of the evidence in a trial, ceases to exercise jurisdiction therein and is succeeded whether by virtue of an order of transfer under the provisions of this Act or otherwise, by another magistrate who has and who exercises such juri s diction the magistrate so succeeding may act on the evidence so recorded by his predecessor, or partly by himself, or he may resummon the witnesses and recommence the trial: Provided that, (a)In any trial the accused may, when the second magistrate commen ce his proceedings, demand that the witnesses or any of them be resummoned and reheard. \par }\pard\plain \s24\qj \fi-374\li374\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin374\itap0\pararsid15219814 \f38\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 \par }\pard \s24\qj \fi-374\li374\ri0\sb19\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin374\itap0\pararsid15219814 {\cs42\i\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 (b) The High Court may, whether there be an appeal or not, set aside any conviction passed on evidence not wholly recorded by the magistrate before whom the conviction was held, if it is of the opinion that the accused has been materially prejudiced thereby and may order a new inquiry or trial." \par }\pard\plain \s15\qj \li0\ri0\sb77\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15219814 \f38\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs36\f0\insrsid15219814 \par }{\cs36\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 In the case of }{\cs42\i\f0\ul\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 Eustance vs. Republic (supra)}{\cs42\i\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 }{\cs36\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 the appellant was charged in July 1967 in the court of a resident magistrate with stealing money which had come into his possession by virtue of his employment in the public service, and which was the property of the Tanzanian Government. \par }\pard \s15\qj \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15219814 {\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 \par }{\cs36\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 The trial began on 4}{\cs36\f0\super\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 th}{\cs36\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 September 1967 before Mr. Agege, when the evidence of one witness was tak en. After five adjournments, the trial was resumed on 8}{\cs36\f0\super\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 th}{\cs36\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 November 1967, when the evidence of another witness was taken. After four further adjournments the evidence of a third witness was taken on 29 }{\cs36\f0\super\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 th}{\cs36\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 January 1968. There were further adjournments, during which Mr. Agege went on leave and his place was taken by Mr. Thomas. On 10}{\cs36\f0\super\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 th}{\cs36\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 April 1968, the trial was resumed, when the advocate for the appellant stated that he did not wish any of the witnesses who had given evidence to be recalled. Three further witn esses were called for the prosecution and the appellant himself gave evidence. After the court had been addressed on behalf of the prosecution and the defence, judgment was reserved until 2}{\cs36\f0\super\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 nd}{ \cs36\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 May 1968. Thereafter nothing appears to have happened until 22}{\cs36\f0\super\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 nd}{\cs36\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 July 1968, when Mr. Meela sat as resident magistrate. The prosecutor is recorded as having said that the proceedings should be re\- commenced de novo, except as regards one witness. The appellant asked that no date should be fixed for the hearing in the absence of his advocate. There was a further mention before Mr. Meela, on 5}{\cs36\f0\super\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 th}{ \cs36\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 August 1968, and a mention before another magistrate on 17}{\cs36\f0\super\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 th}{\cs36\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 October 1968. On 5}{ \cs36\f0\super\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 th}{\cs36\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 November 1968, the appellant appeared before yet another magistrate, Mr. Osakwe, when his advocate indicated that he had no objection to a judgment being written by Mr. Osakwe. The appellant himself concurred and said that he did not wish any of the witnesses recalled. Judgment was given by Mr. Osakwe on 16}{ \cs36\f0\super\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 th}{\cs36\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 November 1968. The appellant appealed unsucc essfully to the High Court. He then applied for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal for East Africa and leave was granted by the Chief Justice. \par }{\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 \par }{\cs36\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 About section 196(1) of the Tanzanian Criminal Procedure Code, that court said: \par }\pard\plain \s18\qj \fi734\li0\ri0\sb235\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15219814 \f38\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs42\i\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 "We thin k that this section, on a true interpretation allows one magistrate to continue and complete a trial begun by another magistrate, we do not consider that it can properly be read as authorizing the conduct of a trial by a succession of magistrates. It may be noted, although we do not base our decision on this, that the proviso to sub-s (1) refers to "the second magistrate," which appears to confirm that the section applies only to two magistrates. \par \sect }\sectd \marglsxn1589\margrsxn1589\margtsxn1434\sbknone\linex0\colsx60\sectdefaultcl\sftnbj {\footerl \pard\plain \s27\qr \li15\ri15\widctlpar\faauto\rin15\lin15\itap0 \f38\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 { \cs46\b\f2\fs26\lang7177\langfe1033\langnp7177\insrsid16452178 }{\cs46\b\f2\fs26\lang7177\langfe1033\langnp7177\insrsid16452178\charrsid16452178 \par }}{\footerr \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f38\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid16452178 \par }}\pard\plain \s17\qj \li0\ri0\sb77\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15219814 \f38\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs42\i\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 Mr. Osakwe was the third magist rate to conduct the trial of the appellant and we think that as such, he had no jurisdiction to continue the trial; it follows that the conviction and sentence passed are a nullity and the trial as a whole was abortive. In these circumstances, we see no a lternative to quashing the conviction of the appellant, setting aside the sentence passed on him and ordering that he be retried de novo, and we so order." \par }\pard\plain \s15\qj \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15219814 \f38\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 \par }\pard \s15\qj \li0\ri0\sb10\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15219814 {\cs36\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 In the appeal before us, the appellant's learned counsel contended that, contrary to the finding of the learned Justice of Appeal, Chief Magistrate Ruhinda did, in fact, record evidence during the appellant's trial. This meant that three magistrates participated in the appellant's trial, which was irregular in view of the decision in the case of }{ \cs42\i\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 Eustance vs. Republic (supra). }{\cs36\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 In the learned counsel's view, }{\cs42\i\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 "evidence" }{\cs36\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 as defined by S.3 of the Evidence Act, includes admission by an accused person and ocular observation by the court in its judicial capacity. In the instant case, Chief Magistrate Ruhinda rec orded a plea of guilty by Andrew Okello. A2, the appellant's co-accused, and proceeded to convict and sentence him. \par }\pard \s15\qj \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15219814 {\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 \par }\pard \s15\qj \li0\ri0\sb19\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15219814 {\cs36\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 Learned counsel contended that the recording of A2's guilty plea constituted a recording of evidence against the appellant. It follows tha t as this was a joint trial on a charge of magistrates who should hear and record evidence in a trial. He submitted that in the often cited case of }{\cs39\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 Eustance vs Republic (supra) }{ \cs36\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 the court made a wrong interpretation of s.196 (1) of the Tanzania Criminal Pro cedure Code. Under the section, a magistrate succeeding another in a trial has power to resummon witnesses and recommence the trial. The learned Deputy DPP referred to the definition, of the word }{\cs39\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 "any" }{ \cs36\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 in }{\cs36\f0\ul\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 Stroud's Judicial Dictionary}{\cs36\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 in support of the view that }{\cs39\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 "any" }{ \cs36\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 does not impose any limit to or qualification of the number concerned; and that it is as wide as possible. In the circumstances, section 142 (1) of the MCA does not impose a limit on the number of magistrates who may try a case. \par }\pard \s15\qj \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15219814 {\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 \par }\pard \s15\qj \li0\ri0\sb14\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15219814 {\cs36\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 The learned D eputy DPP has conceded, because recording pleas is part of trial. However, he contended that that did not nullify the trial in view of the interpretation of section 142 (1) of the MCA put forward by him. \par }\pard \s15\qj \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15219814 {\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 \par \par }{\cs36\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 We agree with the submission of the learned Deputy DPP regarding s.142 (1) of the MCA. In our considered opinion, the interpretation of the section made in the case of }{ \cs39\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 Eustance vs The Republic (supra) }{\cs36\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 is too narrow. }{\cs39\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 Stroud's Judicial Dictionary of Words and Phrases, 4th }{ \cs36\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 edition volume 1 on page 145 defines the word }{\cs39\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 "Any" }{\cs36\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 as follows: \par }\pard \s15\qj \li0\ri0\sb82\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\tx3494\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15219814 {\cs47\f0\expnd4\expndtw20\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 (1)}{\cs47\f0\expnd-6\expndtw-30\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 }{ \cs36\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 "Any" is not confined to a plural sense (Eaton v. Lyon,}{\cs36\f0\insrsid15219814 }{\cs36\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 3 Ves. 694). }{\cs47\f0\expnd4\expndtw20\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 (2)}{ \cs47\f0\expnd-6\expndtw-30\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 }{\cs36\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 "Any" is a word which excludes limitation}{\cs36\f0\insrsid15219814 }{\cs36\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 or qualification}{ \cs36\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 \tab }{\cs36\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 (per Fry L. J., Duck v.}{\cs36\f0\insrsid15219814 }{\cs36\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 Bates, 12 Q. B. D. 79); "as wide as p ossible" (per Chitty J., Beckett v. Sutton, 51 L. J. Ch. 433). A remarkable instance of this wide generality is furnished in Re Farquhar (4 Notes of Ecc. Cases, 651,652, cited Wms. Exs.), wherein the words "any soldier" et c. (Wills Act 1837 (c. 26), s. 11), were construed as including minors, so that soldiers and seamen, within that section, can make }{\cs39\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 NUNCUPATIVE }{\cs36\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 wills though under age. So, a power in a lease, enabling the lessor to resume "possession of any portion of the p remises demised, "enables him to resume all (Liddy v. Kennedy, L. R. 5 H. L. 134) so a notice of an extraordinary meeting (Companies Clauses Consolidation Act 1845 (c.16), s. 70-see now Companies Act 1948 (c.38), Sched. I, reg.96, "to remove any of the pres ent directors," justifies a resolution to remove them all). \par }\pard \s15\qj \li0\ri0\sb5\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15219814 {\cs36\f0\insrsid15219814 \par }{\cs36\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 In our view, the expression }{\cs39\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 "any magistrate" }{\cs36\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 at the}{\cs36\f0\insrsid15219814 }{ \cs36\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 beginning of s. 142 (1) of the MCA, does not mean only one magistrate, but many magistrates. It follows that any number of magistrates can he ar and record the whole or any part of evidence in a trial, ending with one who gives judgment where applicable. The section itself provides a safeguard against injustice which may arise from a trial conducted by a succession of magistrates. That safegua rd is that a succeeding magistrate on his / her own initiative, or on application by the accused person, may recall witnesses or any of them, and re-hear the evidence. \par }\pard \s15\qj \li0\ri0\sb235\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15219814 {\cs36\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 We do not think that the use of the expression }{\cs39\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 "the second magistrate" in }{\cs36\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 paragraph (a) of the proviso to s.142 (1) indicates any intention on the part of the legislature to limit the application of the section to only two magistrates. The expression is equivocal. It is significant that in }{\cs39\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 Eustance's case (supra) }{\cs36\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 the court was careful to say that it did not base its decision on that expression. \par }\pard \s15\qj \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15219814 {\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 \par }\pard \s15\qj \li0\ri0\sb5\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15219814 {\cs36\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 There are many reasons why magistrates who commence trial may not complete the hearing of cases and have to be succeeded by other magistrates. The cause may be administrative, illness or death, transf er to other stations or other reasons. Consequently, if only two magistrates can try a case, it means that only one magistrate may take over a case from the one who has commenced the trial. This would bog down trial of cases in magistrate's Courts. The pr esent situation of backlog of cases would go from bad to worse. In our opinion in }{\cs39\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 Eustance v}{\cs39\f0\insrsid15219814 }{\cs39\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 Republic (supra) }{ \cs36\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 the interpretation put on the Tanzanian Statutory provisions was too restrictive. With the greatest respect to the distinguished Court of Appeal for East Africa, we are not persuaded to apply the same interpretation to s.142 (1) of the MCA of Uganda. Our view is that any number of magistrates as necessary may hear and record evidence in a trial of a case throughout its progress. What matters is to ensure that the accused person is not thereby prejudiced by applying the proviso where appropriate. In the circumstances, ground one of the appeal must fail. \par }\pard \s15\qj \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15219814 {\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 \par }\pard \s15\qj \li0\ri0\sb5\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15219814 {\cs36\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 Under ground 2 of the appeal, the appellant's learned counsel criticized the Court of Appeal for upholding the learned trial judge in taking the plea of guilty by Andrew Okello, A2, as evidence against the appellant. Learned counsel contended that this was an error in law, and relied on the case of }{\cs39\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 Frederic Moore V. R. (1956). 40, Cr. Appeal Report, 50 }{\cs36\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 for his proposition. Learned counsel prayed for the appeal to be also allowed on this ground. \par }\pard \s15\qj \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15219814 {\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 \par }\pard \s15\qj \li0\ri0\sb24\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15219814 {\cs36\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 In his submission under ground 2 of the appeal, the learned Deputy DPP, said that the cases of conspiracy are different from other cases, because one person cannot conspire alone. If a co-accused on a charge of conspiracy is acquitted, it follows that the other accused must also be acquitted. Learned counsel relied on }{\cs42\i\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 R V. Shannon (1974) 2, ALLE 1009, at 1020 and 1021. }{\cs36\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 In the}{\cs36\f0\insrsid15219814 }{\cs36\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 instant case A2 pleaded guilty to conspiracy and a full trial of the appellant followed. In her judgment the learned trial magistrate said that although Okello A2 pleaded guilty of conspiracy, with which the appellant was jointly charged with him, Okello's plea of guilty could not and

would not in any way prejudice the appellant since criminal liability is personal. The prosecution has the burden to prove its allegations against each accused person beyond reasonable doubt. In the instant case, the prosecution had to prove that the appe l lant conspired with Okello to commit the offence charged. This was regardless of the fact that Okello pleaded guilty to the charge. The learned trial magistrate therefore, did not rely on the plea of guilty by Okello to convict the appellant. The learned D eputy DPP however conceded that the Court of Appeal misdirected itself to say that Okello's plea of guilty should be taken into account against the appellant. Such a misdirection, however, did not prejudice the appellant because there was other evidence w hich amply supported conviction of the appellant. He contended that this ground of appeal, should therefore fail. \par }\pard \s15\ql \li0\ri0\sb125\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15219814 {\f0\insrsid15219814 \par }{\cs36\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 This is what the Court of Appeal said in this connection: \par }\pard\plain \s17\qj \fi72\li0\ri0\sb77\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15219814 \f38\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs42\i\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 "By changing his plea of guilty, agreeing with the facts has narrated and showing remorse, Okello must have agreed to kill the complainant. We do not agree with counsel for the appellant that the plea of guilty should not have been relied on to convict th e appellant. It could not be ignored but considered together, with all the evidence on record. Okello voluntarily changed his plea of not guilty to that of guilty and did not retract it, as the appellate judge rightly observed. The only reasonable inferenc e to draw was that Okello agreed with the appellant to kill the compliant." \par }\pard\plain \s15\qj \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15219814 \f38\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 \par }\pard \s15\qj \li0\ri0\sb24\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15219814 {\cs36\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 With respect, we are unable to agree with the learned Justices of Appeal that Okello's plea of guilty could not be ignored as against the appellant. In our view this was misdirect ion, because Okello's plea of guilty should not have been allowed in any way, to prejudice the appellant. Criminal responsibility is personal to an individual, even in the case of conspiracy. This view is supported by the House of Lords decision in }{ \cs42\i\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 R. V Shannon (supra). }{\cs36\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 In that case the respondent and T were charged on an indictment with having conspired together dishonestly to handle stolen goods. The respondent pleaded guilty to the charge. There was no evidence that he did not appreciate and understand w hat he was doing when he did so. He was sentenced to four years imprisonment. T, pleaded not guilty }{\cs39\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 (i) }{\cs36\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 To the conspiracy charge and }{ \cs39\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 (ii) }{\cs36\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 To a Count charging him with handling stolen goods. The jury were unable to agree on their verdict and T was retried. A few days later, T was found not guilty of handling stolen goods. The prosecution offered no evidence against him on the conspiracy charge and a formal verdict of not guilty was entered in that Count. The respondent thereupon appealed, contending that as

T had been found not guilty of conspiring with him, his own conviction and sentence following his plea of guilty to conspire with T could not stand. The Court of Appeal, in purported exercise of its power under s.2 (1) of the Criminal Appeal Act, 1968, al l owed the appeal and quashed the respondent's conviction. The Crown appealed. It was held by the House of Lords that the appeal would be allowed and the respondent's conviction restored for the reasons, inter alia, that where one or two alleged conspirator s had been fairly and properly tried and, on the evidence adduced, rightly convicted, there was no reason why his conviction should be invalidated if for any reason the other conspirator was acquitted at a subsequent trial. Accordingly just as the responde nt's conviction on his own plea of guilty was not relevant to (and therefore not admissible evidence to prove) T's guilt, so was T's acquittal irrelevant to the respondent's conviction. \par }\pard \s15\qj \li0\ri0\sb77\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15219814 {\cs36\f0\insrsid15219814 \par }{\cs36\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 In the instant case, the learned trial magistrate made a thorough evalu ation of the evidence as a whole, from both the prosecution and the defence, and came to the conclusion that the prosecution had discharged the burden of proof to the required standard. She was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant committe d the offence with which he was charged with Andrew Okello, A2. The learned trial magistrate did not rely on Andrew Okello's plea of guilty. She acted on other prosecution evidence, which was sufficient to convict the appellant. The findings of the learned trial magistrates were upheld by the learned appellate High Court Judge. The learned Justices of Appeal agreed with this when they said in their judgment: \par }\pard\plain \s17\qj \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15219814 \f38\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 \par }{\cs38\i\f0\expnd-6\expndtw-30\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 "In}{\cs38\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 }{\cs42\i\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 agreement with Mr. Byabakama, there is over whelming evidence to prove the agreement; to show th at the purpose of the agreement was to kill the complainant and that it was the appellant who masterminded it. As can be seen from the record the appellate judge confirmed the findings of the trial judge in the credibility of the prosecution witnesses inc l uding PWl, Ndide, the appellant's accountant, PW2, Sgt Nsubuga, PW3, Jumba, the appellant's driver and PW4, Andrew Odeke who were supposed to carry out the mission. We agree with both Courts that PWl, Ndide, was a truthful witness and heard the appellan t making the agreement with Andrew Okello and Odeke. He was not part of }{\cs42\i\f0\expnd-4\expndtw-20\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 he}{\cs42\i\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 plot, but came to prove of it (sic) as }{ \cs42\i\f0\expnd-4\expndtw-20\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 he}{\cs42\i\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 was employed by the appellant. We are satisfied that the first meeting held at the Railways Goods shed Kampala connected the appellant with the offence. In fact it was at that meeting that the offence was completed." \par }\pard\plain \s15\qj \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15219814 \f38\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 \par \par }\pard \s15\qj \li0\ri0\sb5\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15219814 {\cs36\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 It is clear, therefore, that inspite of what the learned Justices of Appeal said to the effect that Andrew Okello's plea of guilty should be taken into account against the appel lant, they were satisfied that there was other prosecution evidence which proved beyond reasonable doubt the appellant's guilt of the offence he was charged within in this case. \par }\pard \s15\qj \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15219814 {\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 \par }\pard \s15\qj \li0\ri0\sb230\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15219814 {\cs36\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 We agree with the Learned Justices of Appeal in this regard. \par }\pard \s15\qj \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15219814 {\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 \par }\pard \s15\qj \li0\ri0\sb5\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15219814 {\cs36\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 In the circums tances, the misdirection by the Court of Appeal to which we referred earlier in this judgment, did not cause a failure of justice. \par }\pard \s15\qj \li0\ri0\sb77\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15219814 {\cs36\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 The second ground of appeal must, therefore, fail. In the result, this appeal is dismissed, and it is ordered that the appellant's bail be and is here by cancelled. He must be taken into custody immediately, to resume serving his term of imprisonment.

\par }\pard \s15\qc \li317\ri0\sb173\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin317\itap0\pararsid15219814 {\cs36\b\i\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 Dated at Mengo this 27th}{\cs38\b\i\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 }{ \cs36\b\i\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 day }{\cs43\b\i\f0\expnd4\expndtw20\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 of October}{\cs43\f0\expnd4\expndtw20\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 }{\cs36\b\i\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 2003}{ \cs36\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 . \par }\pard \s15\ql \li302\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin302\itap0\pararsid15219814 {\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 \par \par }\pard \s15\qc \li302\ri0\sb130\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin302\itap0\pararsid15219814 {\cs36\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 A. H. O Oder}{\cs36\f0\insrsid15219814 \line }{\cs39\f0\ul\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 JUSTICE OF SUPREME COURT }{\cs39\f0\ul\insrsid15219814 \par }{\cs36\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 A. N. }{\cs44\i\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 Karokora}{\cs44\i\f0\insrsid15219814 \line }{\cs39\f0\ul\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 JUSTICE OF SUPREME COURT}{\cs39\f0\ul\insrsid15219814 \par }{\cs36\f0\expnd4\expndtw20\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 J. N.}{\cs36\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 Mulenga}{\cs36\f0\insrsid15219814 \line }{\cs39\f0\ul\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 JUSTICE OF SUPREME COURT}{\cs39\f0\ul\insrsid15219814

\par }{\cs37\f0\expnd-4\expndtw-20\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 G}{\cs37\i\f0\expnd-4\expndtw-20\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 .}{\cs37\i\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 }{\cs36\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 W. Kanyeihamba}{ \cs36\f0\insrsid15219814 \line }{\cs39\f0\ul\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 JUSTICE OF SUPREME COURT}{\cs39\f0\ul\insrsid15219814 \par }{\cs36\f0\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 C. M. Kato}{\cs36\f0\insrsid15219814 \line }{\cs39\f0\ul\insrsid16452178\charrsid15219814 JUSTICE OF SUPREME COURT \par }}