Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
COURSE UNIT:
INDEX NO:
2013-AUG-LLB-11936
LACTURER:
SUMISSION DATE:
24th -02-2016
QUESTION;
Subject to the provisions of any other law in force, no particular
number of witnesses shall in any case be required for the proof of
any fact. Discuss
A witness is a person who has seen an event or testifies about what he has seen.
A witness is referred to under the Blacks Law Dictionary as One who sees,
knows, or vouches for something e.g. a witness to a testator's signature. One
who gives testimony under oath or affirmation in person, by oral or written
deposition, or by affidavit the witness to the signature signed the affidavit. A
witness must be legally competent to testify.
"The term 'witness,' in its strict legal sense, means one who gives evidence
in a cause before a court; and in its general sense includes all persons from
whose lips testimony is extracted to be used in any judicial proceeding, and
so includes deponents and affiants as well as persons delivering oral
testimony before a court or jury2.
As a general Rule, Section 133 0f the evidence Act states that Subject
to the provisions of any other law in force, no particular number of witnesses
shall in any case be required for the proof of any fact.3
The common law has been very particular about the kinds of evidence that are
admissible in court. Hearsay, opinion, character and other sorts of evidence are
excluded unless they fit within exceptions. These are refered to as rules of the
quality of evidence. That is, we could say that the quality of hearsay, opinion or
character alerts us to the fact that the particular evidence may not be admissible.
However, just as the common law has been strict about the quality of evidence, it
has been fairly liberal in rules about the quantity of evidence. In other words, if
evidence is admissible, it does not take very much of it to lead to a finding.
Generally a court is able to act on the evidence of one credible witness. This is so
even if there is an opposing witness who is not believed. In the vast majority of civil
cases a trier of fact (judge, assessors or jury) can make a finding in favour of a
plaintiff on the basis of only one witness. Whether a trier of fact will do so in any
particular case is a matter of credibility and weight.
In a criminal case it is usually the case that a conviction can be based on the
credible evidence of only one witness. The exceptions to this are where we find the
role of corroboration and the rules governing it.
The same is true of most offences. As long as the evidence of one witness (whose
evidence covers all of the necessary elements) is believed, it will be sufficient.
There is no general rule of law that it takes more than one witness to convict of
criminal cases. The same is true in civil cases.
7 (1949) 9 EACA 58
8 Section 10 of the Oaths Act chapter 19
9 R v Baskerville
10 R v Manilal
evidence. Court has the discretion to decide if the evidence is reliable, but
must always caution itself of the requirement for corroboration.
The first example is Accomplice evidence.
Accomplice witness is a witness who is an accomplice in the crime that the
defendant is charged with12.A codefendant cannot be convicted solely on the
testimony of an accomplice witness.
This is governed by s.132 of the Act13 according to which, an accomplice shall
be a competent witness against an accused person and a conviction is not
illegal merely because it proceeds upon the uncorroborated testimony of an
accomplice. By statutory provision, there is no requirement of this, but courts
have seen that it is evidence of the worst kind and must be corroborated.
The rationale for requiring corroboration for accomplice evidence was given
in The Handbook for Magistrates: i) Accomplices are usually interested
parties and they are generally always infamous witnesses as a result of
which their evidence is regarded as untrustworthy by courts. The reason is
that the accomplice is likely to tell lies in order to shift guilt from himself or
to play down the part that he took commission in the offence14.
ii) As a company, a partner in crime with the accused, an accused is not
likely to value his oath15;
iii) If an accomplice usually gives evidence because of the hope or promise to
be pardoned or treated leniently by the prosecution16.
Sexual offences
The evidence of the complainant/ victim must be corroborated in these
offences as a rule of judicial practice. The rule was laid down in the case of
Chila v R17 wherein it was held that the Judge should warn assessors and
himself of the danger of acting upon the uncorroborated evidence of the
21 (1977)QB224
22 (1960)EA 87
BIBIOGRAPHY
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
STATUTES
1. Penal Code Act cap 120
2. Evidence Act cap 6
3. 1995 constitution of Uganda
4. Oaths Act cap 19
5. Trafic and Road Safety act
6. Childrens Act