Wakilii

Harji v Rex (Criminal Appeal No. 63 of 1941)

East African Court of Appeal · [1940] EACA 59 · 1940 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal appeal from conviction by Resident Magistrate, Nairobi
Decision
Conviction 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

The Court of Appeal held that the amending regulation was validly made by the Governor. Under sections 37 and 57 of the Indian Evidence Act, a Government Notice published in the Official Gazette reciting that the Governor made regulations is relevant evidence of that fact, and the court must take judicial notice of such laws. The notice was merely the means to inform the public that the Governor had exercised his powers. Cigarette papers fall within the term 'paper manufactures' as a matter of common sense and ordinary meaning. Appeal dismissed.

Outcome

Conviction upheld

Facts

The appellant was convicted by the Resident Magistrate, Nairobi, of selling cigarette papers at an excessive and unjustified price contrary to the Price of Goods Regulations and Defence Regulations 1939. The sale and excessive price were proved and not disputed. The appellant's defence rested on three grounds: that the original regulation using 'paper and cardboard' was too vague to cover cigarette papers; that the amending regulation introducing 'paper manufactures' was invalid because the Government Notice was not signed by the Governor himself but by C.R. Lockhart for the Chief Secretary; and that cigarette papers were not covered by 'paper manufactures'. The magistrate found for the appellant on the first ground but against him on the second and third, convicting him and imposing a fine of Sh. 350.

Issues

  1. Whether cigarette papers were covered by the original regulation referring to 'paper and cardboard'.
  2. Whether the amending regulation introducing the term 'paper manufactures' was validly made by the Governor.
  3. Whether cigarette papers fell within the definition of 'paper manufactures' under the amended regulation.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.

Rules and key headnotes

Evidence — Judicial Notice — Laws and Regulations — Indian Evidence Act s.57
Under section 57 of the Indian Evidence Act, the court must take judicial notice of all laws or rules having the force of law in Kenya, including regulations published in the Official Gazette.
Evidence — Proof of Public Facts — Government Notifications — Indian Evidence Act s.37
Under section 37 of the Indian Evidence Act, when the court must form an opinion as to the existence of a fact of a public nature, any statement of it in a notification of the Government appearing in the Official Gazette is a relevant fact and admissible evidence.
Administrative Law — Delegated Legislation — Validity of Regulations — Publication in Official Gazette
A Government Notice published in the Official Gazette reciting that the Governor has made regulations is sufficient proof that the Governor exercised the powers conferred upon him. The notice is the means employed by Government to inform the public of the exercise of such powers, not the instrument by which the regulations are made.
Statutory Interpretation — Definition of Terms — 'Paper Manufactures'
The term 'paper manufactures' in regulations includes cigarette papers as a matter of common sense and ordinary meaning, consistent with encyclopedic definitions grouping tissue and cigarette papers as a main class of paper manufacture.

Legislation cited (4)

  • Defence Regulations 1939 s.94
  • Price of Goods Regulations G.N. 361/40 s.5
  • Indian Evidence Act s.37
  • Indian Evidence Act s.57

Cases cited (1)

  • Rex v Hemedi bin Kambenga (Criminal Appeal No. 74 of 1940)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Harji v Rex (Criminal Appeal No. 63 of 1941) [1940] EACA 59 (1 January 1940)
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.