Wakilii

Hon. Attorney General v Long (Criminal Appeal No. 725 of 1951)

East African Court of Appeal · [1952] EACA 309 · 1952 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal by way of case stated from acquittal by Resident Magistrate's Court at Nakuru on charges of common assault and obstructing a police officer
Decision
Respondent acquitted on both counts; acquittals upheld on appeal

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 police constable with reasonable grounds to suspect illegal drinking may act under section 22(2) of the Police Ordinance 1948 even when not physically present at the premises, and need not obtain a search warrant or comply with section 35(1) recording requirements. However, acting on an unverified anonymous communication without reasonable grounds of suspicion renders police entry unlawful. The Magistrate correctly acquitted the respondent on both assault and obstruction charges, though the court affirmed the obstruction acquittal on different legal grounds than those given by the Magistrate.

Outcome

Respondent acquitted on both counts; acquittals upheld on appeal

Facts

On 15 April 1951, Assistant Inspector Cass at Solai Police Station received an anonymous telephone message that there was pombe (illegal alcohol) on the respondent Long's farm at Bahati. Cass instructed Sergeant Nelson and a police party to conduct a night raid. The police arrived at 10:20 pm, found no lights in the main house, raided the boys' quarters and found pombe. The respondent came out and pointed his revolver at Sergeant Nelson, not believing they were genuine police as they had no warrant, claimed he had telephoned (which he had not), and there had been recent raids by Africans impersonating police. After satisfying himself they were real police, the respondent told them to leave. He was charged with common assault and obstructing police in execution of duty. The Resident Magistrate acquitted on both counts, finding the respondent had reasonable grounds not to believe they were real police, and that the police were trespassers as they acted on unverified anonymous information without reasonable grounds of suspicion.

Issues

  1. Whether a police officer under section 22(2) of the Police Ordinance 1948 can exercise the power of search only when present at or near the premises and has reasonable grounds for suspecting illegal drinking is taking place there and then.
  2. Whether the provisions of section 22(2) of the Police Ordinance must be read in conjunction with section 35(1) of the same Ordinance requiring recording of grounds of belief before entry.
  3. Whether on the facts found the Magistrate was correct in acquitting the respondent on both counts.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Magistrate's acquittal on first count (common assault) affirmed on the facts found.
  • Magistrate's acquittal on second count (obstruction) affirmed in result but on different legal reasoning.

Rules and key headnotes

Police Powers — Search Without Warrant — Geographical Proximity Not Required
A police constable having reasonable grounds to suspect that illegal drinking is taking place is not precluded from acting under section 22(2) of the Police Ordinance 1948 merely because he is at a distance from the premises rather than present at or near them, and is entitled to exercise the power of search without warrant on the basis of facts stated to him at a police station.
Police Powers — Section 22(2) Police Ordinance — No Requirement for Search Warrant or Section 35(1) Compliance
When a police officer acts under section 22(2) of the Police Ordinance 1948 to enter premises where he reasonably suspects illegal drinking is taking place, he need not obtain a search warrant under section 118 of the Criminal Procedure Code nor comply with the conditions in section 35(1) of the Police Ordinance requiring recording in writing the grounds of belief before entry.
Police Powers — Reasonable Grounds of Suspicion — Anonymous Communications Insufficient
Acting on an unverified anonymous communication alone does not constitute reasonable grounds of suspicion sufficient to justify police entry under section 22(2) of the Police Ordinance 1948, and police who enter premises on such basis without contacting the occupier or verifying the information are trespassers ab initio.
Self-Defence — Reasonable Belief in Unlawful Intrusion
Where an accused has genuine and reasonable grounds to believe that persons claiming to be police are unlawful intruders, including circumstances where they have no warrant, make false claims, and similar impersonation raids have occurred in the locality, the accused is entitled to defend his property and servants by a show of force and cannot be convicted of assault.
Police Ordinance — Sections 22(2) and 35(1) — Distinct Statutory Powers
Section 22(2) of the Police Ordinance 1948, which grants power to search unlicensed premises without warrant where illegal drinking is reasonably suspected, operates independently of section 35(1) which governs searches in connection with alleged offences where obtaining a warrant would cause undue delay, and the two provisions need not be read in conjunction.

Legislation cited (3)

  • Police Ordinance 1948 s.22(2)
  • Police Ordinance 1948 s.35(1)
  • Criminal Procedure Code s.118

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Hon. Attorney General v Long (Criminal Appeal No. 725 of 1951) [1952] EACA 309 (1 January 1952)
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.