No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Trial by Jury and Trial with the Aid of Assessors in the Superior Courts of British African Territories: III1
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 July 2009
Extract
The use of assessors in Courts of Admiralty in England is of long standing. The first reported case in which they are mentioned is probably The Ann of Mostein, but there is an even earlier reference to the practice of seeking advice from the Trinity House Masters dating from the beginning of the seventeenth century. The true status and function of assessors in England is not in doubt, but the same cannot be said of assessors in criminal trials in Africa, and the aim of this chapter is to clarify the position as far as possible. It is intended first to describe the law governing trial with assessors in the superior courts, then to discuss some of the problems that have arisen, and finally to attempt to define the true role of the assessor.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © School of Oriental and African Studies 1961
References
2 (1691), Burrell 264.
3 See Select Pleas of the Court of Admiralty A.D. 1547–1602” (Selden Society, Vol. II Ed. R. G. Marsden), p. lxxv No. 108.
4 See BRETT, M.R., in The Beryl (1884), 9 P.D. 137, at p. 141.
5 The territories to be discussed which have not been mentioned previously are: Basutoland, Bechuanaland, Swaziland, N. Rhodesia, Nyasaland, Tanganyika, Uganda and Somaliland. In these there is no trial by jury at all, as is also now the position in Zanzibar (see ante, p. 36).
6 See [1960] J.A.L. 145, n. 10; and High Court Law (No. 27 of 1955), s. 53 (Eastern Region); High Court Law (No. 3 of 1955), s. 45 (Western Region); High Court Law (No. 7 of 1955), ss. 63 and 69 (S. Cameroons); High Court of Lagos Ordinance (No. 25 of 1955), ss. 58 and 64 (Federal territory of Lagos); High Court Law (No. 8 of 1955), s. 79 (Northern Region). The Nigerian Criminal Procedure Code (Rev. Laws, 1948 Ed., cap. 43) contains in Part XLVIII provisions to govern trial by assessors, but these are not actually in force in any Region and have been repealed in the Eastern Region. See Criminal Procedure (Eastern Region) (Amendment) Law (No. 5 of 1955), s. 9, as amended by E.R. No. 7 of 1957, s. 2. The provisions will be quoted for the purpose of comparison only in the following pages.
7 Basutoland High Court Proclamation (No. 18 of 1954), ss. 7–8.
8 Bechuanaland High Court Proclamation (No. 19 of 1954), ss. 7–8.
9 Swaziland High Court Proclamation (No. 20 of 1954), ss. 7–8.
10 N. Rhodesia Criminal Procedure Code (Rev. Laws, cap. 7, 1959 ed.), s. 223.
11 Protectorate Courts Ordinance (Rev. Laws, 1955 ed., cap. 7), s. 8 (2).
page 83 note 1 See Sir Alison Russell, The Magistrate (1st ed., 1945), at p. 122; Sierra Leone Courts Ordinance (Rev. Laws, 1946, ed., cap. 50), s. 15, as amended by No. 5 of 1957. s. 2.
page 83 note 2 Jurors and Assessors Ordinance (Rev. Laws, 1946 ed., cap. 114), s. 42.
page 83 note 3 Supreme Court Ordinance (Rev. Laws, 1955 ed., cap. 5), s. 66 (3).
page 83 note 4 See notes 7–9, ante, p. 82. The relevant legislation is identical in these three territories.
page 83 note 5 See ante, p. 45.
page 83 note 6 Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act (Rev. Laws, 1939 ed., cap. 28), s. 222, as amended by No. 14 of 1952, s. 20.
page 83 note 7 Ibid., s. 223, as amended by No. 14 of 1952, s. 20.
page 83 note 8 Criminal Procedure Code (Rev. Laws, 1951 ed., cap. 10), s. 273.
page 83 note 9 Criminal Procedure Code (Rev. Laws, 1948 ed., cap. 43), s. 446.
page 83 note 10 (1956), I W.A.L.R. 49.
page 83 note 11 [1949] A.C. 253.
page 83 note 12 (1932), 3 Ny.L.R. 46.
page 83 note 13 (1933), 3 Ny.L.R. 63.
page 84 note 1 See also Aw Deria Hussein v. R. (1952), 20 E.A.C.A. 181 and Busolo s/o Makumba v. R. [1957] E.A. 298.
page 84 note 2 (1956), 23 E.A.C.A. 480.
page 84 note 3 Ibid., at p. 481.
page 84 note 4 Followed in Muchiri s/o Nyamu and anor. v. R. (1956), 23 E.A.C.A. 484, and Bampamiyiki s/o Buhile v. R., [1958] E.A. 398.
page 84 note 5 R. v. Mathenge s/o Muriemoi (1938), 5 E.A.C.A. 154, and Kiambati s/o Mureithi and anor. v. R. (1954), 21 E.A.C.A. 272.
page 84 note 6 For the procedure to be followed when the accused’s fitness to plead is in issue, see R. v. Mtaligomelo s/o Puja (1931), 13 K.L.R. 53 (E.A.C.A.).
page 84 note 7 (1938), 5 E.A.C.A. 143.
page 84 note 8 Overruling an earlier decision of the same court (the East African Court of Appeal) on this point in R. v. Assa Singh (1936), 4 E.A.C.A, 41.
page 84 note 9 (1951), 6 U.L.R. 281.
page 84 note 10 Ibid., at p. 283.
page 84 note 11 Criminal Procedure Code (Rev. Laws, 1957 ed., cap. 24), s. 246.
page 84 note 12 Criminal Procedure Code (Rev. Laws, 1948 ed., cap. 27), s. 259.
page 84 note 13 Criminal Procedure Amendment Decree (No. 6 of 1949), s. 2 (4).
page 84 note 14 Criminal Procedure Code (Rev. Laws, 1959 ed., cap. 6), s. 224.
page 84 note 15 Protectorate Courts Ordinance (Rev. Laws, 1955 ed., cap. 7), s. 8 (2).
page 84 note 16 Supreme Court Ordinance (Rev. Laws, 1955 ed., cap. 5), s. 66 (3).
page 84 note 17 Jurors’ and Assessors’ Ordinance (Rev. Laws, 1946 ed., cap. 114), s. 42.
page 84 note 18 Criminal Procedure Code (Rev. Laws, 1951 ed., cap. 10), s. 273.
page 85 note 1 See, e.g., Kenya Criminal Procedure Code, s. 294, and the Nigeria Criminal Procedure Code, s. 447. The relevant provision in the Sierra Leone Protectorate, s. 19 (1) of the Courts Ordinance, applies only where one assessor is “prevented” from attending.
page 85 note 2 Cherere Gikuli v. R. (1954), 21 E.A.C.A. 304, distinguishing Muthemba s/o Ngombe v. R. (1954), 21 E.A.C.A. 234.
page 85 note 3 R. v. Asra Singh (1936), 4 E.A.C.A. 41, not following the Indian case King- Emperor v. Tirumal Reddi and ors. (1901), 24 Madras 523. Followed by Joseph Kabui v. R. (1954), 21 E.A.C.A. 260. See also R. v. Obau s/o Amimi (1933), 15 K.L.R. 107.
page 85 note 4 See The Beryl (1884), 9 P.D. 137, at 141.
page 85 note 5 In R. v. Guzambizi Wesonga (1948), 15 E.A.C.A. 65, and in Washington s/o Odindo v. R. (1954), 21 E.A.C.A. 392.
page 85 note 6 R. v. Chabaya (1935), I N.R.L.R. 96.
page 85 note 7 See however Bansel v. R., The Times, 15th March, 1960, in which the Judicial Committee dismissed a petition brought on this ground. No reason for the dismissal is given and the Crown was not called on.
page 85 note 8 Mohamed Bachu v. R. (1956), 23 E.A.C.A. 399.
page 85 note 9 Criminal Procedure Code, s. 283 (1), as repealed and replaced by No. 26 of 1958, s. 48.
page 85 note 10 See e.g. Kenya Criminal Procedure Code, s. 318 (I).
page 85 note 11 (1954), 21 E.A.C.A. 392.
page 86 note 1 Ibid., at p. 392.
page 86 note 2 Andrea s/o Kulinga and ors. v. The Queen [1959] J.A.L. 71.
page 86 note 3 Ibid., at p. 71. See also R. v. Bazilio Sentamu (1951) 6 U.L.R. 281.
page 86 note 4 (1934), I E.A.C.A. 106, at p. 106. The absence of such a note is not, as regards Ghana, a ground for quashing a conviction: R. v. Albert Stephen Tawiah and anor. (1949), 12 W.A.C.A. 416 (West African Court of Appeal).
page 86 note 5 Comments on Some Gold Coast Ordinances (London, 1909), at pp. 92–93.Google Scholar
page 86 note 6 In R. v. Albert Stephen Tawiah, supra.
page 86 note 7 In R. v. Bazilio Sentamu (1951), 6 U.L.R. 281.
page 86 note 8 Op. cit., p. 96.
page 87 note 1 R. v. Wuseni (1939), 5 W.A.C.A. 73; R. v. Namwiah Dagarti (1944), 10 W.A.C.A. 272; Appiah Dankwa and ors. v. The King (1951), 13 W.A.C.A. 134 (all West African Court of Appeal); R. v. Jeck Jezelani (1947), 14 E.A.C.A. 70 (Court of Appeal for Eastern Africa).
page 87 note 2 [1957] E.A. 498.
page 87 note 3 To the same effect are R. v. Conteh and ors. (1956), 1 W.A.L.R. 49 (P.C.); R. v. Lulakomba s/o Mikwalo and anor. (1936), 3 E.A.C.A. 43, and John Pulumero v. R. (1938), 4 Ny. L.R. 101; Kapalu v. The King, [1940] Rh. C.A.L.R. 31 (Rhodesian Court of Appeal); R. v. Annan (1927), Gold Coast F.C. 1926–1929, 269 (Gold Coast Full Court); and R. v. Kojo Bodom and ors. (1935), 2 W.A.C.A. 390. Cf. Matalo s/o Kionzo v. The Queen (1956), 23 E.A.C.A. 398, in which the Judicial Committee held that the trial judge need not deal in his judgment (as opposed to his summing up) with aspects of the case irrelevant to his finding of fact but which might have been necessary in a charge to a jury.
page 87 note 4 In Bharat s/o Dorsamy v. R., [1959] 3 All E.R. 292, at p. 294 (an appeal to the Judicial Committee from Fiji, where the position as regards trial with assessors is the same as in the territories under discussion: see Fiji Criminal Procedure Code, s. 306).
page 87 note 5 (1954), 14 W.A.C.A. 501, at p. 503. To the same effect are R. v. Yaw Barimah (1945), II W.A.C.A. 49; and Chasiyama v. R., [1959] 1 R. & N. 87 (Federal Supreme Court of Rhodesia and Nyasaland).
page 88 note 1 See, e.g., Kenya Criminal Procedure Code, s. 318 (1).
page 88 note 2 Supreme Court Ordinance, s. 70.
page 88 note 3 Criminal Procedure Ordinance, s. 449 (I).
page 88 note 4 Francis Juma s/o Musungu v. R., [1958] E.A. 192 (East African Court of Appeal).
page 88 note 5 R. v. Paulo Lwevola s/o Mupene (1943), 10 E.A.C.A. 63.
page 88 note 6 Criminal Procedure Code, s. 283 (I), as replaced by No. 26 of 1958, s. 48.
page 88 note 7 Mahlikilili Dhalamini and ors. v. The King, [1942] A.C. 583.
page 88 note 8 Basutoland, Bechuanaland, and Swaziland High Court Proclamation, 1954, ss. 7 and 8.
page 88 note 9 Gideon Nkambule and ors. v. The King (1949), 1 H.C.T.L.R. 181 (appeal Swaziland).
page 88 note 10 Kenya Criminal Procedure Code, s. 318 (2).
page 88 note 11 Nigeria Criminal Procedure Code, s. 449 (1).
page 88 note 12 Ante, p. 85.
page 89 note 1 As inserted by No. 14 of 1952, s. 22.
page 89 note 2 This is the only provision in Africa requiring assessors to be sworn, another distinction between assessors and jurymen.
page 89 note 3 The section also provides that matters of law, questions as to whether a matter is one of law or of fact, and sentence shall be decided by the judge. This section conflicts with the provision of s. 171 of the same Act and must be taken to have impliedly repealed the latter section to the extent of the conflict. This section is very similar to that governing the function of assessors in South Africa, s. 109 (3) of the South African Criminal Procedure Act (No. 56 of 1955). For the position in South Africa as regards both trial by jury and trial with the aid of assessors, see Gardiner and Lansdown, South African Criminal Law and Procedure (6th ed., Cape Town, 1957), Vol. I, pp. 344–349.
page 89 note 4 As amended by No. 30 of 1946, s. 2.
page 89 note 5 For the function of assessors in Southern Rhodesia where a finding of “extenuating circumstances” is involved in a trial for murder, see Tarusika v. R., [1958] R. and N. 793 (Federal Supreme Court of Rhodesia and Nyasaland).
page 89 note 6 Op. cit., at pp. 93–94.
page 90 note 1 (1934), I E.A.C.A. 191.
page 90 note 2 Ibid., at p. 197.
page 90 note 3 (1922), F.Ct., 22, 74.
page 90 note 4 Ibid., at p. 76.
page 90 note 5 Miligwa s/o Mwinje and anor. v. R. (1953), 20 E.A.C A. 255.
page 90 note 6 Ibid., at p. 256.
page 90 note 7 R v. Nyirantarama w/o Beihweihwa (1943), 10 E.A.C.A. 59.
page 90 note 8 See R. v. Mwita s/o Samo (1948), 15 E.A.C.A. 128; R. v. Zakayo Itima s/o Birigenda (1948), 15 E.A.C.A. 154; Benjamin Joel Khayumba v. R., Cr. App. 154/1953 (Digest and Guide to the Criminal Law of Kenya, ed. Spurling and Kennedy, 1954 ed., p. 12); Adamu Mulira v. R. (1953), 20 E.A.C.A. 223; Baland Singh v. R. (1954), 21 E.A.C.A. 209.
page 91 note 1 In Mahlikilili Dhalamini and ors. v. R., [1942] A.C. 583, at p. 589. See ante, 88, n. 9.
page 91 note 2 The problem and all the relevant cases with one exception (R. v. Yohani Mporokoso (1939), 2 N.R.L.R. 152 (High Court of Northern Rhodesia)) have been exhaustively discussed in the light of personal knowledge of the system by Sir John Gray, then Acting Chief Justice of Zanzibar, in: “Opinions of Assessors in Criminal Trials in East Africa as to Native Custom”, [1958] J.A.L. 5. It is proposed to do little more than restate his conclusions on this problem. See also Allott, “The Judicial Ascertainment of Customary Law in British Africa”, 20 M.L.R. 244, at pp. 249–251.
page 91 note 3 R. v. Ndembera s/o Mwandawale (1947), 14 E.A.C.A. 85.
page 91 note 4 Ibid., at pp. 85–86.
page 92 note 1 This aspect of the problem appears to have been overlooked by Allott, op cit., 20 M.L.R. at p. 250, when he says that the assessor’s opinion “is not, by itself, admissible evidence of these matters [custom] upon which a judge is entitled to rely in reaching a decision”.
page 92 note 2 (1934), 2 E.A.CA. 66.
page 92 note 3 Gray, op. cit., at p. 9, submits that this finding was obiter, but it was not treated as such by the Court of Appeal in Benyamini Pande’s case. See below. The court in Mutwiwa’s case cited with approval the dictum of BHASHYAM AYYANGAR, J., in King Emperor v. Tirumal Reddi (1901), 24 Madras 523, at p. 543, that “assessors are analogous to expert witnesses and in principle the opinion of an assessor is substantially on the same footing as the opinion evidence of expert witnesses … “. See post p. 97, for a discussion of this dictum.
page 92 note 4 (1948), 15 E.A.C.A. 50.
page 92 note 5 (1948), 15 E.A.C.A. 65.
page 92 note 6 (1939). 2 N.R.L.R. 142.
page 92 note 7 In Benyamini Pande s/o Mawuku v. R. (1951), 18 E.A.CA 263.
page 93 note 1 Ibid., at p. 268.
page 93 note 2 Ante, p. 88, note 9.
page 93 note 3 Op. cit., at p. 16.
page 93 note 4 Uganda (Evidence Ordinance, Rev. Laws, 1951 ed., cap. 10) and Zanzibar (Evidence Decree, Rev. Laws, 1934 ed., cap. 10) have equivalent local legislation, the provisions of which are in most cases identical with those in the Indian Act.
page 93 note 5 Uganda, s. 46; Zanzibar, s. 48.
page 93 note 6 Uganda, s. 100; Zanzibar, s. 101.
page 93 note 7 Rev. Laws, 1948 ed., cap. 63. Nigeria is the only other territory under discussion to have such legislation.
page 93 note 8 See ante, p. 92, note 1.
page 93 note 9 See [1960] J.A.L. 145, n. 10.
page 93 note 10 Uganda, s. 54; Zanzibar, s. 56.
page 94 note 1 Uganda, s. 55; Zanzibar, s. 57.
page 94 note 2 Nokes, “The Limits of Judicial Notice” (1958), 74 L.Q.R. 59, at p. 63.
page 94 note 3 Rev. Laws, 1950 ed., cap. 6.
page 94 note 4 Cf. R. v. Chitembeya and anor. (1933), 3 Ny. L.R. 63, in which the Nyasaland High Court quashed the decision of a Subordinate Court because an assessor shown prejudice towards the accused and had been called and sworn as a witness for the prosecution.
page 94 note 5 It is worthy of note that it has now been entirely abolished in India. See Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1955 (No. 26 of 1955).
page 94 note 6 Per Bhashyam Ayyanyar, J., in King-Emperor v. Tirumal Reddi (1901), Madras 523, at p. 543.
page 94 note 7 The Regulation is printed in The Regulations of the Government of Fort William in Bengal, in force at the end of 1853 (ed. R. Clark, London, 1854), Vol. II, p. 924.
page 94 note 8 SirRankin, G. C., Background to Indian Law (Cambridge, 1946), at p. 161.Google Scholar
page 95 note 1 See SirCampbell, G., Modem India and its Government (London, 1852), 472–473.Google Scholar
page 95 note 2 Campbell, op. cit., at p. 473.
page 95 note 3 S. 4 (2).
page 95 note 4 The Beryl (1884), 9 P.D. 137, per BRETT, M.R., at p. 141.
page 95 note 5 (1948) at E.A.C.A. 65, at p. 68. See ante, p. 92.
page 95 note 6 For such a “curing” section, see s. 346 of the Tanganyika Criminal Procedure Code.
page 95 note 7 Ante, p. 84.
page 95 note 8 R. v. Abdulla Mali (1921), U.L.R. 51 (Uganda High Court).
page 95 note 9 R. v. Samuel Chilenje (1931), 3 Ny. L.R. 43 (Nyasaland High Court).
page 96 note 1 R. v. Romani bin Munkiponya (1937), 4 E.A.C.A. 62.
page 96 note 2 R. v. Yowasi s/o Paulo (1939), 6 E.A.C.A. 126. See also R v. Dinu d/o Sombi and ors. (1947), 14 E.A.C.A. 136.
page 96 note 3 Yowasi’s case, supra, at p. 126. For decisions in which other irregularities concerning assessors were held not to render the trial a nullity, see V. S. Paes v. R. (1913), 2 U.L.R. (Uganda High Court); R. v. Fulabhaj Jethabhai Patel and anor. (1946), 13 E.A.C.A. 179 and R. v. Nehemia (1930), 3 Ny. L.R. 38 (Nyasaland High Court).
page 96 note 4 (1952), 6 Ny. L.R. 234.
page 96 note 5 (13th ed., Calcutta, 1931), at s. 284.
page 96 note 6 (1952), 6 Ny. L.R. at p. 234.
page 96 note 7 Ibid.
page 96 note 8 Including R. v. Kelly (1950), 34 C.A.R. 95, which EDWARDS, C.J., in the Uganda case of R. v. Bazilio Sentamu (1951), 6 U.L.R. 281 at p. 282, stated had no application as regards trial with assessors
page 96 note 9 (1952), 6 Ny. L.R., at p. 235, per Tredgold, P.
page 97 note 1 Ibid., at p. 236.
page 97 note 2 Ibid.
page 97 note 3 (1901), 24 Madras 523 (High Court of Madras).
page 97 note 4 See ante, p. 85, note 3.
page 97 note 5 (1901), 24 Madras, at p. 531.
page 97 note 6 Ibid., at p. 543; dictum quoted ante at p. 92, note 3. BENSON, J., agreed with Bhashyam Ayyangar, J., but on other grounds; see pp. 532–533.
page 97 note 7 Op. cit., 20 M.L.R. 244, at p. 250.
page 98 note 1 See ante, p. 92.