Wakilii

Kanji v Rex (Criminal Appeal No. 253 of 1940)

East African Court of Appeal · [1940] EACA 38 · 1940 Appeal Dismissed, Sentence Enhanced AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal appeal from conviction by Resident Magistrate, Mombasa for profiteering under Defence Regulations
Decision
Conviction upheld and sentence enhanced to fine of Sh. 2,000 with 6 months imprisonment with hard labour in default of distress

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 publication of controlled prices did not depend on display in the trader's premises; the duty to display rested on the trader and was immaterial to the offence. Orders under Defence Regulations come into force without publication. The District Commissioner possessed the same power as the Supply Board to distinguish between imported and local onions when fixing maximum prices. The appeal was dismissed and the sentence enhanced from Sh. 600 to Sh. 2,000 given the inadequacy of the original fine relative to the illegal profit.

Outcome

Conviction upheld and sentence enhanced to fine of Sh. 2,000 with 6 months imprisonment with hard labour in default of distress

Facts

Appellant, a merchant trading in Mombasa, sold 450 bags of imported onions at Sh. 6 per frasila when the maximum controlled price fixed by the District Commissioner for imported onions was Sh. 4 per frasila. The maximum controlled price for local onions at that time was Sh. 7/25 per frasila. No list of controlled prices was displayed in the appellant's place of business. The Supply Board had empowered District Commissioners to fix maximum prices under Defence Regulations 1939, with price lists to be displayed at the District Commissioner's office and deemed published when so displayed. For Mombasa Municipality, an amending order required the list also be displayed in traders' premises. Appellant was convicted of selling at a price greater than the maximum controlled price and fined Sh. 600. The difference between the controlled price and the contract price was Sh. 1,350.

Issues

  1. Whether publication of controlled prices for Mombasa Municipality required display of the price list in the trader's place of business.
  2. Whether the District Commissioner had power to fix separate maximum controlled prices for imported onions as distinct from local onions.
  3. Whether the sentence imposed was adequate.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Sentence enhanced from Sh. 600 to Sh. 2,000.
  • In default of distress, 6 months imprisonment with hard labour.

Rules and key headnotes

Administrative Law — Price Control — Publication of Orders — Display Requirements
Publication of controlled prices under Defence Regulations does not depend on display of the price list in a trader's place of business; the duty to display the list is cast upon the trader and the display or non-display of such list is immaterial to the commission of the offence.
Statutory Interpretation — Defence Regulations — Coming into Force
The coming into force of orders made under the Defence Regulations 1939 does not depend on their publication, though prosecution would not ordinarily take place before an order had been published.
Administrative Law — Delegated Powers — Price Control — Scope of Authority
Where the Supply Board empowers a District Commissioner to fix maximum prices for articles listed in a schedule, the District Commissioner has the same power as the Supply Board to fix separate maximum controlled prices for different varieties of the same article, such as imported onions as distinct from local onions.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Sentencing — Profiteering — Adequacy of Sentence
In times of war when Defence Regulations are in force, profiteering contrary to price control provisions must be severely dealt with; a fine that leaves the offender with substantial illegal profit after payment is inadequate and warrants enhancement on appeal.

Legislation cited (4)

  • Defence Regulations 1939 Regulation 46(1)(a)(i)
  • Defence Regulations 1939 Regulation 99
  • Regulation of Prices Order Government Notice No. 814/1939
  • Regulation of Prices Order Government Notice No. 228/1940

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kanji v Rex (Criminal Appeal No. 253 of 1940) [1940] EACA 38 (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.