Wakilii

Abdulhussein v Price Controller (Criminal Appeal No. 19 of 1943)

East African Court of Appeal · [1943] EACA 51 · 1943 Appeal Allowed — Acquittal AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal appeal from conviction for failure to furnish information under price control regulations
Decision
Accused acquitted and fine ordered to be refunded

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

The Court held that where a statutory form demanding information under penalty contains both authorized and unauthorized requirements and is one and indivisible, the entire form is invalid and a trader cannot be prosecuted for refusing to furnish any of the information requested. It would be unreasonable and oppressive to require a trader to furnish information about goods purchased locally with which he had no connection prior to purchase, as such information does not relate to his trade or business within the meaning of the regulations.

Outcome

Accused acquitted and fine ordered to be refunded

Facts

The appellant was a trader who both imported goods and purchased goods locally. The Deputy Price Controller served a form on the appellant under Regulation 19(1)(c) of the Defence (Control of Prices) Regulations 1942, requiring him to furnish detailed information about all transactions in grey unbleached cotton piece goods from 1 January 1941. The form required information including inward invoice numbers, dates of arrival, marks, package numbers, c.i.f. values, import duty, handling and wharfage charges, total landed cost, and details of sales. The Deputy Price Controller's own evidence established that the form applied to both imported goods and goods purchased locally, and that a trader who purchased goods locally would not know the answers to queries about c.i.f. values, import duty, handling charges, wharfage charges, or landed cost to the original seller. The appellant was prosecuted under Regulation 21 for refusing to furnish the information demanded.

Issues

  1. Whether a form requiring information under price control regulations was invalid where it contained both authorized and unauthorized requests for information.
  2. Whether a trader could be prosecuted for refusing to furnish information where the demand form was one and indivisible but contained unauthorized requirements.
  3. Whether information relating to goods purchased locally by a trader constituted information 'in relation to his trade or business' within the meaning of Regulation 19(1)(c).

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • Accused acquitted.
  • Fine, if paid, directed to be refunded.

Rules and key headnotes

Administrative Law — Statutory Powers — Validity of Demands for Information — Forms Containing Authorized and Unauthorized Requirements
Where a statutory form demanding information under penalty is one and indivisible and contains both authorized and unauthorized requirements, the entire form is invalid and a person cannot be prosecuted for refusing to furnish any of the information requested in the form.
Statutory Interpretation — Reasonable Construction — Powers to Demand Information
The words of a statute or regulation must be construed reasonably and not oppressively. It is unreasonable, oppressive and unauthorized to require a trader to furnish information under penalty in respect of goods purchased locally with which he had nothing to do prior to purchase, as such information does not have relation to his trade or business.
Administrative Law — Price Control — Scope of Information-Gathering Powers
A power to require a trader to furnish information 'in relation to his trade or business' does not extend to requiring information about the prior history of goods before they were purchased by that trader, such as the original import costs, duties and charges paid by a previous owner.

Legislation cited (3)

  • Defence (Control of Prices) Regulations 1942 Regulation 19(1)(c)
  • Defence (Control of Prices) Regulations 1942 Regulation 21
  • Defence (Control of Prices) Regulations 1942 Regulation 25(1)

Cases cited (1)

  • Dyson v Attorney General (1912) 1 Ch 158

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Abdulhussein v Price Controller (Criminal Appeal No. 19 of 1943) [1943] EACA 51 (1 January 1943)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.