Wakilii

Hon. The Attorney General v Bashir and Another (Criminal Appeal No. 529 of 1948 (Case Stated))

East African Court of Appeal · [1948] EACA 87 · 1948 Case Remitted for Restatement AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Case stated from Subordinate Court following Magistrate's ruling of no case to answer at close of prosecution case
Decision
Case remitted to Subordinate Court for restatement in proper form

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 the case stated was defective and did not comply with section 375 of the Criminal Procedure Code. When a subordinate court states a case on whether prosecution evidence established a prima facie case, it must render the whole evidence verbatim offered by the Crown and pose the query whether such evidence makes out a case sufficiently to require the accused to enter their defence. The Magistrate should refrain from setting out views on the evidence or indicating the reasoning process followed.

Outcome

Case remitted to Subordinate Court for restatement in proper form

Facts

The accused were jointly charged with offences against the Game Ordinance 1937. At the close of the prosecution case, the Magistrate held that no case had been sufficiently made out against them on two counts and acquitted them under section 208 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Attorney General applied under section 367 to state a case for the opinion of the Supreme Court on whether the Magistrate was correct in law in holding there was no case to answer. The Magistrate purported to state a case, but the Attorney General objected that it was not in proper form under section 375 and applied for it to be sent back for restatement.

Issues

  1. Whether the case stated by the Magistrate was in proper form in accordance with section 375 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
  2. What is the proper form for a case stated on a question of law concerning whether prosecution evidence established a prima facie case at the close of the Crown case.

Orders

  • Case sent back for restatement.

Rules and key headnotes

Criminal Procedure — Case Stated — Defective Form — Requirements of Section 375
A case stated by a subordinate court must comply with section 375 of the Criminal Procedure Code and set out the question of law which the Attorney General requires to be submitted for the opinion of the Supreme Court.
Evidence — Prima Facie Case — Question of Law — Sufficiency of Prosecution Evidence
It is a question of law whether the evidence led by the prosecution in a trial was sufficient to establish a prima facie case, and the only way in which an appellate court can resolve that question is to look to the evidence that has been heard and recorded.
Criminal Procedure — Case Stated — Proper Form — Prima Facie Case Question
In setting out a question of law in a case stated under section 375(g) concerning whether prosecution evidence established a prima facie case, a subordinate court should render the whole evidence verbatim offered by the Crown in support of the charges and pose the query whether such evidence makes out a case against the accused sufficiently to require them to enter their defence.
Criminal Procedure — Case Stated — No Finding of Fact at Close of Prosecution Case
Paragraph (b) of section 375 does not arise when stating a case at the close of the prosecution case, as there can be no finding of fact at that stage; it is solely a question of the sufficiency of the evidence.
Criminal Procedure — Case Stated — Magistrate Must Refrain from Expressing Views on Evidence
When stating a case on a no case to answer ruling, the Magistrate should refrain from setting out any views on the evidence heard or matter indicative of the process of reasoning followed, as this may place the trial Magistrate in an embarrassing position if the case is remitted for continuation of the trial.

Legislation cited (6)

  • Criminal Procedure Code s.367
  • Criminal Procedure Code s.375
  • Criminal Procedure Code s.372(a)
  • Criminal Procedure Code s.208
  • Criminal Procedure Code s.209
  • Game Ordinance 1937

Cases cited (1)

  • R. v. R. M. Bashir and S. F. Hassan (Cr. Case No. 102 of 1948)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Hon. The Attorney General v Bashir and Another (Criminal Appeal No. 529 of 1948 (Case Stated)) [1948] EACA 87 (1 January 1948)
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.