Skip to main content
UploadLanguage (EN)Support
BusinessMobileSocial MediaMarketingTechnologyArt & PhotosCareerDesignEducationPresentations & Public SpeakingGovernment & NonprofitHealthcareInternetLawLeadership & ManagementAutomotiveEngineeringSoftwareRecruiting & HRRetailSalesServicesScienceSmall Business & EntrepreneurshipFoodEnvironmentEconomy & FinanceData & AnalyticsInvestor RelationsSportsSpiritualNews & PoliticsTravelSelf ImprovementReal EstateEntertainment & HumorHealth & MedicineDevices & HardwareLifestyle
Uploaded byrakibunguja208
PPTX, PDF10 views

Admissibility of Opinion Evidence in Ugandan Courts: Legal Framework and Case Law

Overview of the rules and exceptions for admitting opinion evidence in Ugandan courts, focusing on expert and ordinary witness opinions under the Evidence Act, Cap. 8, with key case law illustrations.

Law◦
Download to read offline
ADMISSIBILITY OF OPINION EVIDENCE IN UGANDAN COURTS Using relevant authorities Evidence Act, Cap. 8 1
1. INTRODUCTION • Opinion evidence is a statement of what a person thinks about a fact. • Examples: what caused an event, whether something happened, or who wrote a document. • General rule: witnesses should give facts they personally perceived, not their own conclusions. • Opinion evidence is generally inadmissible, subject to important exceptions under the Evidence Act. 2
2. MAIN CATEGORIES • The Evidence Act, Cap. 8 recognises two main categories: • • Expert opinion evidence • • Opinion of ordinary/non-expert witnesses in specified matters • The main statutory provisions are sections 43–49. 3
3. EXPERT OPINION — SECTION 43 • Expert opinion is relevant where the court must form an opinion on: • • Foreign law • • Science or art • • Identity of handwriting • • Identity of finger impressions • The witness must be specially skilled in the particular field. 4
4. WHO IS AN EXPERT? • The court decides whether a witness is an expert. • The court may consider education, training, skill and experience. • Formal academic qualifications are not always necessary. • The important requirement is demonstrated competence in the specific field. 5
5. PRACTICAL EXPERIENCE CAN QUALIFY • Gatheru s/o Njagwara v R (1954) 21 EACA 384 • • Expertise is not limited to academic knowledge. • • Practical experience may provide the necessary skill. • • However, competence must be established before the opinion is admitted. • R v Silverlock [1894] 2 QB 766 • • Experience in examining documents was sufficient to qualify the witness in handwriting evidence. 6
6. EXPERTISE MUST RELATE TO THE ISSUE • Odindo v R [1969] EA 12 • • A police inspector was not accepted as an expert on the accused's state of mind and intoxication. • • A doctor's evidence was admissible because of the doctor's relevant medical expertise. • R v Okello (1917) EA 17 • • Extensive traffic experience and training qualified the police officer as an expert in road-traffic cases. 7
7. EXPERT MUST GIVE REASONS • An expert should explain the basis of the opinion, not merely state a conclusion. • Section 49: where an opinion is relevant, the grounds on which it is based are also relevant. • The court may reject an opinion that is unsupported or inadequately explained. 8
8. FACTS SUPPORTING OR CONTRADICTING EXPERT OPINION • Section 44 provides that facts may become relevant if they support or are inconsistent with a relevant expert opinion. • The court therefore considers the expert opinion together with other evidence. • Expert evidence is not considered in isolation. 9
9. EXPERT EVIDENCE DOES NOT BIND THE COURT • Expert evidence only assists the court. • Kit Smile Mugisha v Uganda, Criminal Appeal No. 78 of 1976 • • Expert evidence is opinion and should not replace substantive evidence. • Hassan v Salum (1964) EA 172 • • Courts should not blindly rely on expert evidence because experts can make mistakes. 10
10. THE COURT REMAINS THE FINAL DECISION-MAKER • Onyango v R (1969) EA • • The court is free to form its own opinion after considering expert evidence and the rest of the record. • Therefore, admissibility does not mean automatic acceptance. • The court determines the weight to give the opinion. 11
11. ORDINARY WITNESS — HANDWRITING • Section 45 • Where the court must determine who wrote or signed a document, the opinion of a person acquainted with the handwriting is relevant. • The person may have: • • Seen the writer write; • • Received documents written by that person; or • • Regularly dealt with such documents in business. • A professional handwriting expert is not always required. 12
12. ORDINARY WITNESS — CUSTOMS & RIGHTS • Section 46 • • Opinion of persons likely to know about a general custom or right is relevant. • • The custom or right may be common to a considerable class of people. • The witness must have a proper basis for knowing about the custom or right. 13
13. USAGES, TENETS & MEANING OF WORDS • Section 47 makes relevant the opinion of persons with special means of knowledge concerning: • • Usages and tenets of a family or body of persons; • • Constitution and government of a religious or charitable foundation; • • Meaning of words or terms used in particular districts or by particular classes. 14
14. OPINION ON RELATIONSHIP • Section 48 • • Opinion concerning the relationship of one person to another may be relevant. • • The opinion must come from a person with special means of knowledge. • • This may include a family member or another person with special knowledge. • • The opinion alone is not sufficient to prove marriage in the situations specified by the section. 15
15. DIRECT ORAL EVIDENCE — SECTION 59 • Opinion evidence should generally come from the person who actually holds the opinion. • A witness should not simply repeat another person's opinion. • Exception: opinions of experts in recognised treatises may be proved in specified circumstances where the author cannot reasonably give evidence. 16
16. ADMISSIBILITY VS WEIGHT • Admissibility asks: Can the court receive the opinion as evidence? • Weight asks: How much importance should the court give it? • The court may consider: • • Qualifications and experience • • Relevance of expertise • • Reasons for the opinion • • Supporting or contradicting facts • • All other evidence 17
17. KEY PRINCIPLES • • Opinion evidence is generally excluded. • • Sections 43–49 create important exceptions. • • Expert evidence requires relevant skill or experience. • • Expertise must relate to the specific issue. • • The expert should give reasons for the opinion. • • Certain opinions of ordinary witnesses are also admissible. • • The court is not bound by an expert opinion. 18
18. CONCLUSION • Ugandan law generally excludes opinion evidence where a witness is merely giving a personal conclusion. • However, the Evidence Act, Cap. 8 admits expert opinions and specified opinions of ordinary witnesses. • The authorities show that expertise must be relevant and properly established. • Ultimately, the court evaluates the opinion, its grounds and all other evidence before making its own decision. 19
KEY AUTHORITIES • Evidence Act, Cap. 8 — sections 43–49 and 59 • Gatheru s/o Njagwara v R (1954) 21 EACA 384 • R v Silverlock [1894] 2 QB 766 • Odindo v R [1969] EA 12 • R v Okello (1917) EA 17 • Kit Smile Mugisha v Uganda, Criminal Appeal No. 78 of 1976 • Hassan v Salum (1964) EA 172 • Onyango v R (1969) EA 20