Uganda v Opolot & Anor (Criminal Session Case No. 239 of 1993) [1994] UGHCCRD 27 (20 September 1994)

Flynote

Criminal law|Evidence Law

Case summary

On the issue of the dying declaration, court noted that there is no rule that to support a conviction there must be corroboration of a dying declaration, but it is generally very unsafe to base a conviction solely on uncorroborated dying declaration. It was held that what the deceased was heard saying was different from what the other witnesses heard and their evidence therefore does not corroborate. On the issue of identification, court found that the said identification was based on the deceased’s mention of the name of one of his attackers. The conditions were not favourable for the identification. It considered that the inconsistencies regarding evidence of identification are grave inconsistencies which point at either deliberate unfaithfulness of the eye witness or tend to show that conditions were difficult and not favourable for correct identification of the culprits. Held that prosecution does not place the accused persons at the scene of the crime.

---