Wakilii

Rashid and Another v The Queen (Criminal Appeal No. 166 of 1956; Criminal Appeal No. 167 of 1956)

East African Court of Appeal · [1956] EACA 9 · 1956 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Consolidated criminal appeals from conviction and sentence for moving maize without a permit and moving maize at night
Decision
Convictions and sentences 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 burden of proof rests on the prosecution and an accused need not prove innocence. However, where facts proved raise a probable presumption of guilt, a court may convict in the absence of any explanation. Here, the appellants were found in a lorry transporting 56 bags of maize illegally at 2 a.m. without a permit. The circumstances raised a probable presumption of complicity. The appellants offered no explanation. The conviction was justified.

Outcome

Convictions and sentences upheld

Facts

A lorry containing 56 bags of maize was stopped by police at approximately 2 a.m. The two appellants were seated in the cab with the driver. When questioned, the first appellant confirmed the load was maize. No permit to move maize was produced to police or to the court. The appellants were convicted under sections 2 and 4 of the Movement of Maize Order 1953 for moving maize without a permit and moving maize during the hours between sunset and sunrise. The appellants neither gave evidence nor called witnesses. The magistrate held there was a strong presumption the appellants were party to the illegal movement of maize during darkness.

Issues

  1. Whether the magistrate misdirected himself as to the burden of proof by considering that the presence of the appellants at the time and place where the offence was committed raised a presumption of guilt.
  2. Whether there was sufficient evidence that the appellants moved or were party to the movement of the maize.

Orders

  • Appeals dismissed.

Rules and key headnotes

Evidence — Burden of Proof — Presumption of Guilt from Proved Facts
The burden of proof rests on the prosecution and it is not for an accused person to prove his innocence. Where facts proved are such as to raise a probable presumption of guilt, a court is, in the absence of any explanation, entitled to convict.
Evidence — Presumption of Guilt — Complicity Inferred from Circumstances
Where the commission of a crime has been proved and facts have been proved from which the complicity of an accused in the crime may be inferred in the absence of any reasonable explanation, the court may properly convict if no explanation is attempted.
Criminal Law — Regulatory Offences — Illegal Movement of Controlled Goods
Where persons are found in a private vehicle being used for the illegal movement of controlled goods late at night, the circumstances may raise a probable presumption that those persons are concerned in the illegal movement, absent any reasonable explanation.

Legislation cited (2)

  • Movement of Maize (No. 2) Order 1953 s.2
  • Movement of Maize (No. 2) Order 1953 s.4

Cases cited (6)

  • Peck v The Queen (Mombasa Criminal Appeal No. 11 of 1956)
  • R. v. Rees, 21 Cr. App. R. 35
  • R. v. Blackburn, (1955) 39 Cr. App. R. 84
  • R. v. Hepworth and Fearnley, (1955) 39 Cr. App. R. 152
  • R. v. Summers. 36 Cr. App. R. 14
  • R. v. Murtagh and Kennedy, 39 Cr. App. R. 72

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Rashid and Another v The Queen (Criminal Appeal No. 166 of 1956; Criminal Appeal No. 167 of 1956) [1956] EACA 9 (1 January 1956)
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.