Wakilii

Rex v Ala (Criminal Appeal No. 52 of 1942)

East African Court of Appeal · [1942] EACA 68 · 1942 Appeal Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal appeal from conviction for selling liquor without a licence
Decision
Appellant's conviction quashed and appellant discharged

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 section 44 of the Liquor Ordinance, 1934 creates three distinct offences. Where a servant holds and operates under his absentee master's wine merchant's and grocer's licence, he possesses a licence within the meaning of the Ordinance. Nothing in the Ordinance prevents a wine merchant and grocer's business from being carried on by a servant in the master's absence. The conviction for selling liquor without a licence was quashed.

Outcome

Appellant's conviction quashed and appellant discharged

Facts

The appellant was convicted of selling two bottles of beer without a licence. At the material time, the appellant was a servant of an absentee master who held a wine merchant's and grocer's licence. The appellant had possession of this licence while conducting his master's business. The prosecution agreed that the master held the licence and that the appellant possessed it. In an earlier criminal case on the same facts, the appellant had been charged with dealing in intoxicating liquor in a manner other than provided for in the licence conditions and was acquitted; that acquittal had not been set aside.

Issues

  1. Whether a servant in possession of his master's wine merchant's and grocer's licence can lawfully sell liquor on behalf of his absentee master without committing the offence of selling liquor without a licence under section 44 of the Liquor Ordinance, 1934.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • Conviction and sentence quashed.
  • Fine, if paid, ordered to be refunded.

Rules and key headnotes

Liquor Licensing — Construction of Offence Provisions — Section 44 Liquor Ordinance 1934
Section 44 of the Liquor Ordinance, 1934 creates three separate and distinct offences: (1) selling, dealing in or disposing of intoxicating liquor without a licence; (2) selling or offering or exposing for sale intoxicating liquor at any place where not authorized by licence; and (3) selling or dealing in or disposing of intoxicating liquor in any manner other than provided for in the conditions of the licence.
Double Jeopardy — Autrefois Acquit — Same Facts Different Offence
Where an accused has been tried and acquitted of dealing in intoxicating liquor in a manner other than provided for in licence conditions, and that acquittal has not been reversed or set aside, section 138 of the Criminal Procedure Code prevents a subsequent trial on the same facts for a different offence under the same statutory provision.
Liquor Licensing — Vicarious Exercise of Licence — Servant Acting for Absentee Master
There is nothing in the Liquor Ordinance, 1934 to prevent the business of a wine merchant and grocer being carried on in the master's absence by his servant. Where the servant possesses the master's wine merchant's and grocer's licence and acts within its scope, the servant possesses a licence for the purposes of section 44 and does not commit the offence of selling liquor without a licence.

Legislation cited (4)

  • Liquor Ordinance 1934 s.44
  • Liquor Ordinance 1934 s.39(2)
  • Liquor Ordinance 1934 s.4
  • Criminal Procedure Code s.138

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Rex v Ala (Criminal Appeal No. 52 of 1942) [1942] EACA 68 (1 January 1942)
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.