Wakilii

Rex v Abdulla (Criminal Appeal No. 114 of 1943)

East African Court of Appeal · [1943] EACA 61 · 1943 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal appeal from conviction by Resident Magistrate, Nairobi for receiving stolen property
Decision
Appellant's 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 held that receiving stolen property is complete when the accused, upon discovering goods deposited in his absence, forms the intention to accept them with reason to believe they are stolen. The rule in Schama and Abramovitch does not apply where the act of receiving is observed by credible witnesses and the court disbelieves the accused's explanation. The magistrate was entitled to weigh the evidence and prefer the prosecution's case. Appeal dismissed.

Outcome

Appellant's conviction and sentence upheld

Facts

The appellant was convicted of receiving stolen property with guilty knowledge and sentenced to two years hard labour and a fine of Sh. 500. The theft was clearly proved. Two thieves, Muthami and Wallace, testified that stolen property was left at the appellant's shop at 6 a.m. on the morning of the burglary. Inspector Varma found the stolen property concealed in the appellant's house, some in a wooden box under clothing and the rest on his bed covered by blankets. The appellant gave conflicting accounts of how he obtained the property. He initially stated he bought it for Sh. 60, later claiming he bought only two of the three exhibits from a prosecution witness named Timotheo for Sh. 60, and that the third exhibit was left behind. The owner valued the third exhibit alone at Sh. 60/50, meaning if the appellant bought all three exhibits for Sh. 60, he obtained goods worth more than twice that amount at a suspiciously low price. The magistrate found the appellant falsely denied the truth of when and how the goods arrived.

Issues

  1. Whether the appellant, having been absent when stolen property was left at his shop, could be convicted of receiving stolen property with guilty knowledge when he later found the goods and formed the intention to accept them.
  2. Whether the rule in Rex v Schama and Abramovitch requiring an explanation that might reasonably be true applied to this case where witnesses observed the act of receiving in circumstances indicating guilty knowledge.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Conviction for receiving stolen property with guilty knowledge upheld.
  • Sentence of two years hard labour and fine of Sh. 500 with six months hard labour in default upheld.

Rules and key headnotes

Receiving Stolen Property — Completion of Offence — Absence of Receiver at Time of Delivery
Where stolen property is left at an accused's premises in his absence, the offence of receiving is complete as soon as the accused arrives, discovers the goods, and forms the intention to accept them with reason to believe they are stolen.
Receiving Stolen Property — Ratification of Receipt — Guilty Knowledge Acquired After Delivery
If a thief leaves stolen goods with a person in the absence of the intended receiver, and the receiver upon return acquires guilty knowledge and approves or ratifies the receipt, this amounts to receiving with guilty knowledge.
Corroboration — Evidence of Accomplices — Concealment of Stolen Property
Evidence of concealment of stolen property in an accused's premises, combined with conflicting explanations by the accused, can constitute corroboration of accomplice testimony in a receiving stolen property case.
Recent Possession — Application of Schama and Abramovitch Rule — Observed Acts of Receiving
The rule in Schama and Abramovitch, requiring that an explanation which might reasonably be true must result in acquittal, does not apply where the act of receiving in circumstances indicating guilty knowledge has been observed by credible witnesses whose evidence the court believes.
Weighing Evidence — Magistrate's Duty — Disbelieving Accused's Explanation
Where a case does not rest on presumption of guilt from recent possession but on direct evidence of receiving, the magistrate is entitled to weigh the evidence and prefer the prosecution's case, disbelieving the accused's explanation of how he came into possession of stolen property.

Cases cited (3)

  • Rex v Schama and Abramovitch (1914) 11 Cr. App. R. 45
  • Regina v. Woodward, Leach & Cave, 122
  • Snelling (1928) 28 Cr. App. R. 117

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Rex v Abdulla (Criminal Appeal No. 114 of 1943) [1943] EACA 61 (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.