ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY IN UGANDA
LAW OF EVIDENCE COURSEWORK
LECTURER: MATANDA ABUBAKAR HASSAN
STREAM B LLB3
GROUP 4
NAMBAZIIRA SHAKIRA 121-053011-25182
OSIO EMMANUEL 121-053011-22190
OPIRU PATIENCE 121-053011-24520
NAMBE PEACE TULUSILA 121-053011-23869
NANTONO VICTORIA 121-053011-25356
NAIGA HADIIA GIFT 121-053011-26097
WAKISA JOY 121-053011- 24135
NGULA ABDULRAHIM SULAIMAN 120-053011-21439
TUMUKUNDE JIRUS 121-053011-25241
AMONGIN KELYN DOREEN 121-053011-25731
NABUSITA MERCY 121-053011-24522
NEKESA AISHA 121-053011-24635
QN ‘’Character evidence is irrelevant and inadmissible in most
circumstances, but admissible under several exceptions in both civil and
criminal hearings. Per Counsel Champion Gudo’’ Critically upraise this
statement[10marks]
1
The evidence act does not define what a character is but rather gives
explanations to what character is as provided for under. of the evidence act.
Character should be given as general disposition and reputation of a person
and not if particular acts like which reputation or disposition were shown.
Disposition: Means the tendency of a person to act or behave in a certain
way
Reputation means opinions of the members of the public about a particular
person
Character as Cockburn LJ explains it refers to general reputation. This
general reputation must be funded in the neighborhood in which the accused
lives.
General rule: Character evidence is not admissible. In Mugo Vs R court held
that evidence of character is not easily accepted by court and its
admissibility depends on certain criteria. Therefore, below are the exceptions
to this general rule in both criminal and civil hearings respectively.
According to Section 51 of the Evidence Act, in criminal hearings the fact
the accused person is of good character is relevant. It is argued that the
provision is in line with the constitution’s presumption of innocence.
However, where the character is given pursuant to Section 51, it must be
related to the offence charged.
Good character is adduced to mitigate sentence for instance in Yowana
Ssetumba Vs [1957]1 EA 35 where court held that evidence of good
character becomes relevant and admissible if the accused choses to put his
character in issue. The prosecution then adduces evidence rebutting the
accused’s claim of good character by proving that he/she is of bad character.
As for bad character, it is relevant the fact that the accused is of bad
character as provided under Section 52 of the Evidence Act, Section 98
of the Trial and Indictments Act and Section 133[2] of the Magistrates
Court Act which states that, the fact that an accused person has a bad
character is irrelevant because if such evidence is taken straight away, it
would tantamount to the guilt of the person. However, these sections are
bound to the four exceptions below;
1)Character evidence in Criminal Cases: Character evidence is divided
into two that is; evidence of good character and evidence of bad character.
Evidence of good character is admissible in Criminal hearings.
(Section 51of the Evidence ACT)
Evidence of bad character is inadmissible in Criminal hearings.
2
a) Where evidence has been given or a questions asked by the accused
person or his or her advocate for the purpose of showing that he/she
has a good character. R Vs Rowton (1865) Le & Ca 520 at 29; 169
ER 1497; [186] All ER Rep 549 Rowton was charged with indecent
assault upon a 14-year-old. He called several witnesses who had
known him at different periods of his life. They gave him a decent
character of a good man. Prosecution adduced evidence where it was
stated that the witness knew the accused and that in his opinion and
that of the brothers who were also pupils was that the accused’s
character was that of a man capable of gross indecency and a man
with most pronounced immorality. It was held that the evidence of a
good character is given on behalf of the accused and then of bad
character is only produced to rebut. In this case the evidence must be
confined to the accused’s general reputation and that the opinion of a
witness as to the accused’s disposition founded upon his own
experience and observation was inadmissible. In Maxwell Vs DPP the
defense stated that he had lived a good, clean moral life. The court
held that the prosecution had to bring evidence of bad character to
disprove the accused’s assertion of good character. Court further
stated that;
‘’ If the accused by himself seeks to give evidence of his good
character for purposes of showing that it is unlikely that he committed
the offence charged he raises by way of defense an issue as to his
good character so that he may be fairly cross examined on that issue
to show the contrary.
b) Where there is proof that he or she committed or been convicted of
another offence is admissible evidence to show that he or she is guilty
of the offence with which he or she is charged. In Rodney Vs R
[1911-13] All ER the accused was indicted for having in the night
time broken into and entered a dwelling house with intent to ravish a
woman. At the trial the defense argued that prosecution failed to prove
that he entered the house to ravish her. Prosecution then adduced
evidence that the appellant at about 2am on the same morning went
to the house with another woman which was about three houses away
from the complainant’s house. That he gained access to her bedroom
and that with her consent he had connection with her. It was held that
the evidence was admissible to show the state of the appellant’s state
of mind and body at the time when he broke into the complainant’s
house. That the evidence coupled with what happened when he was in
her house was admissible to show the intent with which he broke into
the house.
3
c) Where the nature or conduct of his or her defense is such as to involve
imputations on the character of the complainant or the witnesses for
the prosecution. Pursuant to Section 52(C). At this point the
prosecution is free to adduce evidence of bad character against the
accused.
d) Where he or she has given evidence against any other person charged
with the same offence as that he or she is charged. In R Vs Bruce
(1975)1 WLR, court defined giving evidence against A co-accused as
evidence which supports the prosecution’s case in a material respect
of which it undermines the defense of the co-accused.
2)Character evidence in Civil cases
This can either be character of the defendant, plaintiff or the witness.
General Rule: Character of persons is irrelevant and therefore inadmissible.
Section 50 of the Evidence Act provides that the characters of the parties
is irrelevant but can be admitted as an exception if it appears from the facts
that it is relevant. Similarly, in the case of R Vs Ruguru court noted that the
character of the parties is irrelevant but can be admitted as an exception if it
appears from the facts that it is relevant.
Section 54 of the Evidence Act provides that the character of a person
may be adduced to help court in mitigating damages. In the case of Scott Vs
Sompson, the court stated that in mitigation of damages only general
evidence of reputation may be adduced and it is not permissible to plead
such matters as directing the attention and relevant sector of the plaintiff’s
life.
Character of the defendant
General rule: The character of the defendant may not depend on whether he
has been convicted of a criminal offence what needs to be established is the
behavior with respect to the civil matters in issue. In civil matters, the past
character of the accused is irrelevant. Thus in Hollington Vs Hewthorn &
Co. [1943]1KB It was held that a criminal conviction could not be admitted
as evidence in a subsequent civil proceedings proof of the facts of the
conviction. In this case the defendant a driver of a vehicle was convicted for
careless driving which led to the death of the plaintiff’s son. The plaintiff
sought to rely on the criminal conviction in proof of his claim.
Character of the plaintiff
The character of the plaintiff is irrelevant except in particular cases e.g.
cases of breach of promise to marry where the character of the plaintiff may
come in. If the plaintiff sues the defendant for breach of promise to marry,
4
where it is shown that the character of the plaintiff is bad, the defendant
may have a mitigating factor. In Scott Vs Sampson (1882) court held that
the evidence of general bad reputation was admissible to mitigate a
plaintiff’s damages claim for loss of reputation.
Character of a witness
The character of a witness is not relevant in both civil and criminal
proceedings. However, both sides tend to discredit the credibility of a
witness as a matter of winning their side. Witnesses are subject to scrutiny to
establish whether they are speaking the truth and this could involve an
examination of their character. Section 53 of the Evidence Act, in criminal
proceedings an accused person giving evidence may be asked any question
in cross examination that would tend to incriminate him or her as to the
offence with which he or she is charged.
Section 154 of the Evidence Act provides for the impeachment of
credibility of a witness and provides that the the credit of a witness may be
impeached, in the following ways by the adverse party, or with the consent
of court, by the party that calls him or her as follows;
By the evidence of persons who testify that, from their knowledge of
the witness, believe him or her to be unworthy of credit.
By proof that the witness has been bribed, or has accepted to offer a
bribe, or has received any other corrupt inducement to give his or her
evidence.
By proof of former statements inconsistent with any part of his or her
evidence which arises contradictions.
When a man is prosecuted for rape or an attempt to ravish, by
evidence that the prosecutrix was generally of immoral character.
In conclusion, the general rule is that character evidence is inadmissible
however there are exceptions under which admissibility depends on; nature
of the case that is either civil or criminal also the nature of the parties.
Character evidence and its admissibility is provided for under Sections
51 ,52,53 and 54 of the Evidence Act.