Wakilii

Mahida v Rex (Criminal Appeal No. 515 of 1951)

East African Court of Appeal · [1951] EACA 136 · 1951 Appeal Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal appeal from conviction by 1st Class Magistrate's Court at Kakamega
Decision
Appellant acquitted and fines refunded

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 'production' of an invoice under regulation 22(1) of the Defence (Control of Prices) Regulations 1945 requires the invoice to be formally numbered and exhibited in court, not merely shown to the magistrate. Where a controlled price list is not gazetted but published in another manner, it must be made a court exhibit; the court will not take judicial notice of it or accept oral evidence of its contents. The conviction was quashed because neither the invoices nor the price list were properly produced.

Outcome

Appellant acquitted and fines refunded

Facts

The appellant was convicted on six counts of selling loaves of bread in Kisumu at 57 cents each, exceeding the maximum permitted selling price of 51 cents per loaf, contrary to regulation 11(1) of the Defence (Control of Prices) Regulations 1945. The prosecution called a single witness, a Price Control Inspector, who purported to produce invoices found among the appellant's books showing the sales at 57 cents, and a controlled price list showing the permitted price of 51 cents. Neither the invoices nor the controlled price list were formally made court exhibits; the Inspector merely showed them to the trial magistrate. The appellant was convicted on this evidence.

Issues

  1. Whether invoices can constitute prima facie evidence under regulation 22(1) without being formally exhibited as court exhibits.
  2. Whether the word 'production' in regulation 22(1) requires that invoices be numbered and exhibited in court.
  3. Whether a controlled price list published in a manner other than gazette notification must be exhibited in court for the court to take cognizance of it.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • Convictions on all six counts quashed.
  • Appellant acquitted.
  • Fines imposed, if paid, to be refunded to the appellant.

Rules and key headnotes

Evidence — Documentary Evidence — Production of Documents — Meaning of 'Production'
The word 'production' in regulation 22(1) of the Defence (Control of Prices) Regulations 1945, which allows an invoice to be prima facie evidence of a sale, means production in the manner recognized in legal procedure, namely by the invoice being made and numbered as an exhibit in the case and placed on the case file.
Evidence — Judicial Notice — Subsidiary Legislation — Publication Requirements
A court may take judicial notice of controlled price lists published in the Gazette as subsidiary legislation, but where such lists are published in a manner other than gazette notification under regulation 4(1) and (3) of the Defence (Control of Prices) Regulations 1945, they must be made court exhibits and the court will not take judicial notice of them or accept a Price Inspector's oral evidence as to their contents.
Criminal Procedure — Proof of Offence — Price Control Violations — Evidentiary Requirements
A conviction for selling goods in excess of the maximum permitted price cannot stand where the prosecution fails to properly produce both the invoices evidencing the sales and the controlled price list establishing the maximum permitted price as court exhibits.

Legislation cited (4)

  • Defence (Control of Prices) Regulations 1945 s.11(1)
  • Defence (Control of Prices) Regulations 1945 s.22(1)
  • Defence (Control of Prices) Regulations 1945 s.4(1)
  • Defence (Control of Prices) Regulations 1945 s.4(3)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Mahida v Rex (Criminal Appeal No. 515 of 1951) [1951] EACA 136 (1 January 1951)
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.