Wakilii

Likonja v Rex (Cr. App. 74-1930.)

East African Court of Appeal · [1930] EACA 142 · 1930 Appeal Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal appeal following retrial ordered by Court of Appeal
Decision
Convictions and sentences set aside; matter to proceed afresh under new procedure if Attorney-General files information

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

Held that provisions of enactments altering judicial procedure are retrospective unless they contain words expressly or by necessary implication inconsistent with retrospective effect. Section 10(2)(e) of the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance preserves the right to institute and continue legal proceedings after repeal of a penal enactment, but does not affect the procedure to be followed in the course of such proceedings. The retrial should have followed the new Criminal Procedure Code. Convictions and sentences set aside.

Outcome

Convictions and sentences set aside; matter to proceed afresh under new procedure if Attorney-General files information

Facts

The appellant was originally convicted following a trial. The Court of Appeal ordered a retrial on 15 September. The Provincial Commissioner reheard the case but applied the old Indian Criminal Procedure Code which had been in force when the offence was committed in April. On 1 July, a new Criminal Procedure Code came into force in Tanganyika, replacing the Indian Code. The new code prescribed materially different procedures including preliminary enquiry, commitment, and making every accused person a competent witness. The retrial conviction came up for confirmation and appeal. The central question was whether the retrial should have followed the old or new procedural code.

Issues

  1. Whether upon a retrial ordered after the introduction of a new Criminal Procedure Code, the correct procedure was that laid down in the old code or that provided by the new code.
  2. Whether section 10(2)(e) of the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance operates to preserve the old procedural regime for offences investigated before the procedural change.

Orders

  • Convictions and sentences set aside.
  • New trial ordered has not in effect been held.
  • Proceedings must begin as if the accused had been committed for trial.
  • Information by the Attorney-General must be filed if he sees fit to do so.

Rules and key headnotes

Criminal Procedure — Retrospective Application — Alteration of Judicial Procedure
Provisions of enactments effecting alterations in judicial procedure are retrospective unless they contain words expressly or by necessary implication inconsistent with any retrospective effect.
Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance — Effect of Repeal — Section 10(2)(e)
Section 10(2)(e) of the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance enacts that as liability to punishment continues, legal proceedings necessary for the imposition of such punishment may be instituted, maintained or continued and enforced after repeal of the penal enactment, but this provision cannot properly be read as affecting the procedure to be followed in the course of such legal proceedings.
Criminal Procedure — Retrial — Applicable Procedural Law
Where a retrial is ordered after the introduction of a new Criminal Procedure Code, the retrial must be conducted according to the new procedural provisions in force at the time of the retrial, not the procedure in force when the offence was committed or first investigated.

Legislation cited (10)

  • Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance (Cap. 1, Laws of Tanganyika) s.10(2)(e)
  • Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance (Cap. 1, Laws of Tanganyika) s.10(1)(d)
  • Courts Ordinance (Cap. 3, Tanganyika) s.21
  • Criminal Procedure Amendment Ordinance (Cap. 6) s.6
  • Criminal Procedure Code s.16
  • Criminal Procedure Ordinance s.17
  • Criminal Procedure Code s.14
  • Criminal Procedure Code s.15
  • Criminal Procedure Code s.154
  • Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885 s.5

Cases cited (1)

  • King v Chandra Dharma [1905] 2 KB 335

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Likonja v Rex (Cr. App. 74-1930.) [1930] EACA 142 (1 January 1930)
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.