Wakilii

Lupamba and Another v Reginam (Criminal Appeal No. 307 of 1955)

East African Court of Appeal · [1950] EACA 449 · 1950 Appeal Adjourned AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal appeal from High Court order remitting case for rehearing after Crown appeal from acquittal
Decision
Appeal adjourned pending personal appearance of both appellants

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 declined to hear the appeal of the first appellant who had left the jurisdiction and gone to India. Although the second appellant remained within the jurisdiction, the Court held it undesirable to hear his appeal separately as the appeals had been consolidated and the same considerations applied to both cases. The Court adjourned the hearing and ordered both appellants to appear personally at the next sitting.

Outcome

Appeal adjourned pending personal appearance of both appellants

Facts

The two appellants were jointly tried by the Resident Magistrate at Jinja on multiple charges including being rogues and vagabonds contrary to section 163(5) of the Uganda Penal Code. They were acquitted on all counts. The Crown appealed from the acquittal and the High Court allowed the appeal, remitting the case to the Magistrate for rehearing. The High Court did not order the arrest of the accused or grant them bail. Both accused appealed to the Court of Appeal. Before the hearing on 19 January 1956, the first appellant went to India. Both appellants were represented by counsel but neither appeared in person at the hearing.

Issues

  1. Whether the Court of Appeal should hear the appeal of an accused person who has left the jurisdiction.
  2. Whether the Court should hear the appeal of the second appellant separately when the appeals had been consolidated and the first appellant was not present.

Orders

  • Appeal adjourned to following sitting of the Court at Kampala.
  • Both appellants ordered to appear personally at the adjourned hearing.

Rules and key headnotes

Criminal Procedure — Appeals — Accused Outside Jurisdiction — Personal Appearance
Where an accused person appeals to the Court of Appeal but leaves the jurisdiction before the hearing, the Court will not hear the appeal unless the appellant submits physically and in fact, as well as in form, to the jurisdiction.
Criminal Procedure — Crown Appeal from Acquittal — Duty of High Court to Secure Attendance
When the Crown successfully appeals from an acquittal or dismissal under section 331a of the Criminal Procedure Code and an order is made for rehearing, the High Court should always take immediate steps to ensure that the accused will appear at the rehearing by either committing him to prison, admitting him to bail, or issuing a warrant of arrest.
Criminal Procedure — Consolidated Appeals — Separate Hearing Undesirable
Where appeals have been consolidated under rule 30(4) and the same considerations apply to both appellants' cases, it is undesirable to hear one appeal separately when the other appellant is not present.

Legislation cited (7)

  • Uganda Penal Code s.163(5)
  • Uganda Criminal Procedure Code s.331
  • Uganda Criminal Procedure Code s.331a
  • Eastern African Court of Appeal Rules 1954 r.30(4)
  • Eastern African Court of Appeal Rules 1954 r.39(2)
  • Eastern African Court of Appeal Rules 1954 r.49
  • Eastern African Court of Appeal Rules 1954 Second Schedule Part II Items 14 and 15

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Lupamba and Another v Reginam (Criminal Appeal No. 307 of 1955) [1950] EACA 449 (1 January 1950)
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.