Wakilii

Likimani v The Queen (Criminal Appeal No. 322 of 1956)

East African Court of Appeal · [1956] EACA 13 · 1956 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal appeal from conviction for being in charge of a motor vehicle while under the influence of drink
Decision
Conviction, sentence, and disqualification order 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 held that the conviction was supported by evidence and that merely stating a conviction is against the weight of evidence does not comply with section 350(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The fact that the appellant stopped the car and went to sleep was not a 'special reason' sufficient to avoid disqualification under section 43(2), as allowing such a reason would enable intoxicated persons to escape disqualification merely by stopping. However, this fact may be considered as a mitigating circumstance when assessing whether to impose imprisonment and the quantum of any fine.

Outcome

Conviction, sentence, and disqualification order upheld

Facts

On 2 April 1956, the appellant was found in Duke Street, Nairobi, in charge of a motor vehicle while under the influence of drink to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control. Shortly before being found, the appellant had been driving and had nearly been involved in a collision. When arrested at approximately 8.15 p.m., the appellant was slumped over the steering wheel with his head in his hands, and the car was stationary and drawn up to the kerb. A laboratory technologist gave evidence as to the alcoholic content of the appellant's blood. Two doctors who examined the appellant one and two hours after arrest gave evidence, but the magistrate preferred the evidence of the police inspector who saw the appellant at the time of arrest, coupled with the blood alcohol evidence. The appellant was convicted, fined Sh. 2,000 or two months' imprisonment in default, and disqualified from holding a certificate of competency for six months.

Issues

  1. Whether the conviction for being in charge of a motor vehicle while under the influence of drink was against the weight of evidence.
  2. Whether the fact that the appellant had stopped the vehicle and gone to sleep constituted a 'special reason' under section 43(2) of the Traffic Ordinance, 1953, to avoid disqualification from holding a driving licence.
  3. Whether the sentence and period of disqualification were excessive.

Orders

  • Appeal against conviction dismissed.
  • Appeal against sentence dismissed.
  • Appeal against order for disqualification dismissed.

Rules and key headnotes

Criminal Procedure — Grounds of Appeal — Sufficiency
Merely stating that a conviction is against the weight of evidence does not comply with section 350(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code and is insufficient as a ground of appeal. To succeed, an appellant must show that the conviction is unreasonable or cannot be supported having regard to the evidence.
Traffic Offences — Drunk in Charge — Special Reasons for Non-Disqualification
The fact that a person convicted of being in charge of a motor vehicle while under the influence of drink has stopped the vehicle and gone to sleep does not constitute a 'special reason' under section 43(2) of the Traffic Ordinance, 1953, sufficient to avoid the mandatory six months' disqualification from holding a driving licence. To hold otherwise would enable intoxicated persons to escape disqualification merely by stopping and going to sleep.
Sentencing — Mitigating Circumstances — Drunk in Charge
While the fact that a person convicted of being drunk in charge has stopped the vehicle by the side of the road is not a 'special reason' to avoid disqualification, it is a mitigating circumstance that should be taken into consideration when deciding whether to impose imprisonment and in assessing the quantum of any fine.

Legislation cited (3)

  • Traffic Ordinance, 1953 s.43(1)
  • Traffic Ordinance, 1953 s.43(2)
  • Criminal Procedure Code s.350(2)

Cases cited (4)

  • Duck v Peacock (1949) 1 All ER 318
  • Jones v English (1951) 2 All ER 853
  • Hopper v Stansfield (1946) 48 LGR 641
  • Aladesuru v The Queen (1956) AC 49

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Likimani v The Queen (Criminal Appeal No. 322 of 1956) [1956] EACA 13 (1 January 1956)
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.