Wakilii

Gachohi v Rex (Criminal Appeal No, 191 of 1950)

East African Court of Appeal · [1950] EACA 84 · 1950 Appeal Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal appeal against sentence following conviction for overcharging under Defence (Control of Prices) Regulations
Decision
Licence cancellation order quashed; fine increased to Sh. 100 with 14 days to pay, in default two months imprisonment with hard labour

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

An order cancelling a trading licence under section 17(1) of the Traders Licensing Ordinance must follow the wording of the statute by specifying both the date and period of cancellation, with the date fixed to give the accused time to dispose of existing stocks. Previous convictions unsupported by the usual police form should not be taken into account on the mere oral admission of the accused. The sentence was varied to remove the licence cancellation but the fine was increased.

Outcome

Licence cancellation order quashed; fine increased to Sh. 100 with 14 days to pay, in default two months imprisonment with hard labour

Facts

Karioki s/o Gachohi was prosecuted for overcharging 4 cents for a loaf of bread contrary to Defence (Control of Prices) Regulations 1948, section 11(1). He pleaded guilty and admitted without equivocation that he had charged a customer 4 cents in excess of the controlled price. The Magistrate convicted him on his plea and sentenced him to a fine of Sh. 50 and ordered cancellation of his trading licence under what is now section 17(1) of the Traders Licensing Ordinance. The Magistrate recorded that the accused admitted two previous convictions for similar offences but no written police record of these convictions was produced. The order cancelling the licence did not specify the date or period of cancellation.

Issues

  1. Whether the order cancelling the appellant's trading licence complied with the requirements of section 17(1) of the Traders Licensing Ordinance regarding specification of date and period of cancellation.
  2. Whether previous convictions could properly be taken into account based solely on oral admission by the accused without supporting police records.

Orders

  • Appeal against sentence allowed in part.
  • Order cancelling trading licence set aside.
  • Fine increased from Sh. 50 to Sh. 100.
  • Appellant allowed 14 days to pay fine.
  • In default of payment, appellant to serve two months imprisonment with hard labour.

Rules and key headnotes

Traders Licensing — Cancellation of Licence — Statutory Requirements for Order
An order under section 17(1) of the Traders Licensing Ordinance cancelling a trading licence must follow the wording of that section and must specify both the date and period of cancellation of the licence, with the date to be fixed so as to give the accused time necessary to enable him to dispose of his existing stocks.
Previous Convictions — Proof — Oral Admission Insufficient
Previous convictions unsupported by the usual police form should not be taken into account on the mere oral admission of the accused.
Sentencing — Deprivation of Livelihood — Need for Proper Evidence
Where a Magistrate exercises discretion to cancel a trading licence, thereby taking away the livelihood of the accused, the appellate court must be in possession of the facts which led the Magistrate to exercise that discretion, and in the absence of such facts the order should not stand.

Legislation cited (3)

  • Defence (Control of Prices) Regulations 1948 s.11(1)
  • Traders Licensing Ordinance s.17(1)
  • Ordinance No. 8 of 1943 s.2

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Gachohi v Rex (Criminal Appeal No, 191 of 1950) [1950] EACA 84 (1 January 1950)
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.