Wakilii

Din v Rex (Criminal Appeal No. 56 of 1951)

East African Court of Appeal · [1951] EACA 245 · 1951 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal appeal from Supreme Court of Kenya dismissing appeal against conviction by Resident Magistrate, Nairobi
Decision
Conviction and sentence upheld

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

A trader who knowingly misdescribes inferior goods as superior goods and charges a price exceeding the permitted maximum for the inferior goods commits an offence under price control regulations. Under regulation 2, 'sale' includes an offer to sell. Where the trader fraudulently offered goat's meat described as mutton, no contract for mutton was concluded; instead, the offer of goat's meat at an excessive price constituted a sale within the regulations, regardless of whether the customer accepted the goods.

Outcome

Conviction and sentence upheld

Facts

The appellant, a butcher in Nairobi Municipal Market, received an order from a regular customer for rolled beef. Against this order, he supplied 31 lb of goat's meat and 3 lb of rolled beef. He provided an invoice describing the goat's meat as '31 chops' at Sh. 5.25, intending to represent mutton chops. The Magistrate found the appellant sold and delivered the goat's meat with intent to deceive the customer and his African servant into believing it was mutton. The price charged exceeded the permitted selling price for goat's meat by Sh. 1.78. The customer rejected the meat upon discovering the deception.

Issues

  1. Whether a sale of goat's meat occurred when the trader supplied goat's meat invoiced as mutton chops at a price exceeding the permitted maximum for goat's meat.
  2. Whether the definition of 'sale' in regulation 2 of the Defence (Control of Prices) Regulations, 1945 includes an offer to sell, regardless of acceptance by the purchaser.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.

Rules and key headnotes

Price Control Offences — Misdescription of Goods — Sale at Excessive Price
If a trader knowingly misdescribes goods as of a superior quality but in fact supplies goods of an inferior quality and charges a price which is in excess of the permitted maximum price for the inferior goods, he commits an offence against price control regulations.
Definition of 'Sale' — Offer to Sell — Price Control Regulations
Under regulation 2 of the Defence (Control of Prices) Regulations, 1945, 'sell' includes an agreement to sell and an offer to sell. Where a trader fraudulently offers to sell inferior goods misdescribed as superior goods, that offer constitutes a sale within the regulations, regardless of whether the purchaser accepts the goods.
Fraudulent Misrepresentation — No Concluded Contract
Where a trader's conduct is fraudulent, there is no concluded contract for the sale of the goods as described. Instead of accepting the customer's offer to buy superior goods, the trader offers to sell inferior goods, and that offer falls within the statutory definition of sale for purposes of price control regulations.
Price Control Regulations — Estoppel — Inapplicability in Criminal Cases
The equitable rule of estoppel cannot be imported into criminal proceedings under price control regulations to establish that a sale occurred.

Legislation cited (3)

  • Defence (Control of Prices) Regulations, 1945 regulation 2
  • Defence (Control of Prices) Regulations, 1945 regulation 11(1)
  • Defence (Control of Prices) Regulations, 1945 regulation 22(1)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Din v Rex (Criminal Appeal No. 56 of 1951) [1951] EACA 245 (1 January 1951)
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.