Yusufu s/o Bertram v. R., Crim. App. 781-D-69; 8/1/70, Mustafa J.

Yusufu s/o Bertram v. R., Crim. App. 781-D-69; 8/1/70, Mustafa J.

The two appellants were jointly charged with robbery with violence. The complainant was a dumb person, and it would seem he alleged he was robbed of Shs. 350/- by the appellants. It appears complainant and appellants and some other persons were drinking at a bar and when they left, complainant alleged, he was robbed. At the trial, the complainant gave evidence by signs, and no interpreter skilled and sworn was used. One of the appellants told the trial magistrate he could not understand sign language and could not cross- examine on what complainant by certain signs alleged had happened.

            Held: “In my view, although according to section 128 of the Evidence Act a witness who is unable to a peak may give his evidence by signs; this must be done through an interpreter skilled in sign that one of the appellants was completely prevented from cross-examining the complainant. Indeed, the trial magistrate in his judgment states, inter alia, “Admittedly, it was sometimes difficult for the court to understand the signs made by the dumb when he gave his evidence ….” In view of these very unsatisfactory features I do not think it is at all safe to uphold the convictions against the appellants.” Convictions quashed.