ISSUES OF LAW IN THE CASE OF R V MWAMWINDI [1972] HCD 219
Brief facts of the case
The information filed against the accused, SAUDI ABDALLAH MWAMWINDI, was that he murdered WILBERT KLERRUU on a Christmas day, the 25th December, 1971, in Mkungugu Ujamaa village in Ismani Division in Iringa District of Iringa Region. The deceased was at the time of this death the Regional Commissioner of Iringa Region and was residing at Iringa Township. The accused was at the time of the incident, was a member of the Mkungugu Ujamaa.
During the trial the accused raised some defenses and then contended that if it was the accused that killed the deceased, he was insane when he did it and therefore could not be criminally liable under Section 13 of the Penal Code, however the accused had two major mental breakdowns in 1958 called CATATONIC SCHIZOPHRENLA. This mental disease has two forms, catatonic excitement which is characterized by violence, aggressiveness, restlessness, delusions and hallucinations.
The defendant also relied on the defense of provocation following some provocative words uttered by the regional commissioner, and such words includes, NI MAHALI UNAPOZIKIA MIRIJA WENZIO MBWA WEE’ (It is the place you bury your fellow exploiters, you dog), ‘UWONGO SHENZI’ (you are lying you uncivilized men) and FUNGA MDOMO WAKO’ (Shut up your mouth.). At this utterance the accused was stung beyond endurance and lost his temper completely.
He went straight to his house which was about 170 feet away, fetched his double-barrel gun (Exhibit P.3), loaded the two barrels on his way out and when he saw the deceased, he leveled the gun at him and pulled the two triggers at once with his middle and 3rd fingers (his index finger was deformed). The shots fired in quick succession and the deceased fell down and died on the sp about 8 feet from the accuser’s house.
Three important issue of law found in this case
Firstly, is the issue of insanity as provided under section 13 of the Penal Code provides that “a person is not criminally responsible for an act or omission if at the time of doing the act or making the omission he is through any disease affecting his mind incapable of understanding what he is doing or of knowing that he ought not to do the act or make the omission.” But that same section made it clear that a person can still be criminally liable for his act although his mind is affected by disease if such disease does not in fact produce upon his mind one or other of the effects specified in the section.
That the insanity must relate to the act complained of. It was not enough to show that the accused and a history of mental disease. It must be shown that that mental disease affected his act in the way specified in the section.
In determining this issue, the court had to take into consideration, several factors such as, The accused’s family history, His own personal history, The circumstances surrounding the act itself and opinions of medical experts.
By paying a due regard to those factors, the court satisfied itself that, the accused was of sound mind when he killed the deceased, though the accused suffered a recognized mental disease CATATONIC SCHIZOPHRENLA.
The second issue of law in this case is the issue of provocation as provided under section 202 of the penal code, as the accused believed that the state of the accused from the time he was abused, went to his house, collected his gun and shot the deceased was such that he acted in anger and by inference there was no time for his temper to cool. The court disregarded this defense of provocation as the court believed that the state of the accused from the time he was abused, went to his house, collected his gun and shot the deceased was not out of provocation as the accused had a time for his temper to cool.
Lastly, there was the issue of ujamaa and self-reliance introduced by the government and its repercussion it has in most society especially in Mkungugu Ujamaa village in Ismani Division where the incidents took place.
