Wakilii

Mohamed and Another v Rex (Cr. Apps. 35 and 36 of .1930 (Msa.).)

East African Court of Appeal · [1930] EACA 158 · 1930 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal appeals from conviction and sentence by Resident Magistrate
Decision
Appellants' convictions and sentences confirmed; each fined one hundred pounds for the first trophy and five pounds for each of ninety-three additional trophies

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 a person convicted under section 11 of the Game Ordinance for possessing or attempting to export trophies can be sentenced both under section 11 for the first trophy and under section 44(1) for additional trophies. Section 44 provides for penalties in respect of each additional animal, and its language is clear and unambiguous. The attempted exportation of multiple rhinoceros horns constitutes separate offences for each trophy, not a single offence.

Outcome

Appellants' convictions and sentences confirmed; each fined one hundred pounds for the first trophy and five pounds for each of ninety-three additional trophies

Facts

The appellants and three others were involved in moving cases containing rhinoceros horns in December 1929. The cases were placed on a dhow by Ayabu Bin Sheikh, who knew they did not go through Customs. On 10 January 1930, cases were discovered in another dhow at Fundi Issa containing rhinoceros horns. The cases bore labels with the first appellant's name. Witnesses testified that the cases found were the same as those loaded earlier. The Magistrate found sufficient evidence to connect the cases found on 10 January with those handled by the five accused persons. The appellants were convicted of being in possession and attempting to export fifteen cases containing 187 rhinoceros horns contrary to section 9 of the Game Ordinance.

Issues

  1. Whether a person sentenced under section 11 of the Game Ordinance in respect of one trophy can be further sentenced under section 44(1) in respect of other trophies.
  2. Whether the exportation or attempted exportation of multiple trophies constitutes a single offence or separate offences in respect of each trophy.

Orders

  • Appeals dismissed.
  • Convictions confirmed.
  • Sentences confirmed.
  • Costs awarded to the Crown.

Rules and key headnotes

Criminal Law & Procedure — Game Offences — Cumulative Penalties — Sentencing under Multiple Sections
A person convicted under section 11 of the Game Ordinance in respect of one trophy can be further sentenced under section 44(1) in respect of other trophies, as section 44 provides for penalties in respect of each additional animal.
Statutory Interpretation — Singular and Plural — Application of Interpretation Ordinance
Where the clear intention of a statute is to make it a separate offence to commit any contravention in respect of every animal affected, section 43 of the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance (providing that words in the singular include the plural) does not apply, as the contrary intention appears throughout the statute.
Environmental Law — Wildlife Protection — Multiple Trophies — Separate Offences
The attempted exportation of multiple wildlife trophies constitutes separate offences in respect of each trophy, not a single offence, where the statute's clear intention is to protect each animal individually.
Statutory Interpretation — Penalty Provisions — Clear and Unambiguous Language
Where penalty provisions use clear and unambiguous language providing for fines in respect of each additional animal, the court will not interpret the statute to exclude offences dealt with separately in other sections, unless the statute specifically does so.

Legislation cited (5)

  • Game Ordinance (Cap. 161) s.9
  • Game Ordinance (Cap. 161) s.11
  • Game Ordinance (Cap. 161) s.44
  • Game Ordinance (Cap. 161) s.2
  • Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance (Chapter 1) s.43

Cases cited (3)

  • Crepps v Durden (5 Ex. 363)
  • Apothecaries Company v Jones [1893] 1 QB 89
  • Ex parte Beale (1868) LR 3 QB

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Mohamed and Another v Rex (Cr. Apps. 35 and 36 of .1930 (Msa.).) [1930] EACA 158 (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.