Wakilii

Mahamed Hussein v Price Controller (Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 1943)

East African Court of Appeal · [1943] EACA 22 · 1943 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal appeal from Supreme Court of Kenya, which had dismissed appeal from Resident Magistrate's conviction
Decision
Conviction and sentence 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 of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that there was sufficient evidence before the trial Magistrate to establish that the accused was a wholesale or retail merchant. The Supreme Court did not err in ordering additional evidence under Section 357 of the Criminal Procedure Code where some evidence existed but required clarification. The burden of proving that the accused was neither a wholesaler nor a retailer shifted to the accused during the trial, given his superior knowledge of the nature of his trading activities.

Outcome

Conviction and sentence upheld

Facts

The accused was convicted by the Resident Magistrate, Mombasa, of giving false information to the Price Controller under Regulation 12 of the Defence (Price of Goods) Regulations, 1941. The Price Controller had requested information about the accused's rice stocks. The accused stated he had 230 bags, but 275 bags were found on his premises. Evidence showed the accused was a merchant with a shop and godown in Mombasa and a shop at Lamu to which he despatched 45 bags of rice. The accused appealed to the Supreme Court, which remitted the case to the Magistrate for further evidence on whether the accused was a wholesale or retail merchant. The further evidence established that the accused was a trader and wholesaler. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, and the accused appealed to the Court of Appeal for Eastern Africa.

Issues

  1. Whether there was sufficient evidence before the Magistrate to establish that the accused was a wholesaler or retailer for purposes of Regulation 12 of the Defence (Price of Goods) Regulations, 1941.
  2. Whether the Supreme Court erred in ordering additional evidence to be taken under Section 357 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
  3. Whether the burden of proof shifted to the accused to prove he was neither a wholesaler nor a retailer.

Orders

  • Appeal against conviction dismissed.
  • Appeal against sentence dismissed.

Rules and key headnotes

Evidence — Sufficiency of Evidence — Prima Facie Case
Evidence that an accused is a merchant who sells rice, has a shop with a godown, and despatches goods to another location is sufficient, in the absence of rebutting evidence, to raise a prima facie case that he is a wholesale or retail merchant.
Criminal Procedure — Appellate Powers — Additional Evidence
An appellate court may properly exercise its power under Section 357 of the Criminal Procedure Code to direct the taking of additional evidence where there is some evidence which might legally support a conviction but which the court considers not quite satisfactory. The power does not extend to cases where there is no evidence legally capable of sustaining the charge.
Criminal Procedure — Appellate Powers — Distinction from Cases with No Evidence
The case of R v Sirasi, which refused to allow additional evidence to fill a gap in the Crown case where there was no evidence at all on an essential element, is distinguishable from a case where some evidence exists but requires clarification.
Evidence — Burden of Proof — Shifting Burden
The burden of proof may shift from one side to the other during the course of a case, and in considering the amount of evidence necessary to shift the burden, the court has regard to the opportunities of knowledge with respect to the fact to be proved which may be possessed by the parties respectively.
Evidence — Burden of Proof — Facts Especially Within Knowledge
Where a person is accused of an offence and a fact is especially within the knowledge of that person, the burden of proving that fact may rest upon the accused under Section 2 of the Evidence Act (Amendment) Ordinance, 1936, or may shift to the accused during trial where the accused has superior knowledge of the nature of his trading activities.

Legislation cited (9)

  • Defence Regulations, 1939, Regulation 84
  • Defence (Price of Goods) Regulations, 1941, Regulation 12
  • Criminal Procedure Code s.357
  • Criminal Procedure Code s.358
  • Court of Appeal Rules r.18
  • Indian Code of Criminal Procedure s.428
  • Criminal Appeal Act, 1907, s.9
  • Evidence Act (Amendment) Ordinance, 1936, s.2
  • Traders Licensing Ordinance, 1936

Cases cited (3)

  • R v Sirasi (3 E.A.C.A. 40)
  • R v Robinson (12 Cr. App. R. 226)
  • The King v Kakelo (1923) 2 K.B. 793

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Mahamed Hussein v Price Controller (Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 1943) [1943] EACA 22 (1 January 1943)
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.