Wakilii

Rex v Ali (Criminal Appeal No. 194 of 1947)

East African Court of Appeal · [1947] EACA 70 · 1947 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal appeal from conviction by Resident Magistrate, Nairobi
Decision
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 held that whether a person is a prohibited immigrant is a question of fact for the court to determine on the evidence, not exclusively for the Immigration Officer. On evidence that the appellant could not produce Sh. 200 seven weeks after entry and showed no means at the time of entry, the magistrate properly concluded he was a prohibited immigrant under section 5(a). Employment obtained after illegal entry does not negate prohibited immigrant status. Appeal dismissed.

Outcome

Conviction and sentence upheld

Facts

The appellant, born in Italian Somaliland, entered Kenya from Tanganyika without permission on 1 January 1947. On 8 January 1947 he obtained employment with Express Transport Company at Sh. 250 per month. On 20 February 1947 the Immigration Officer interviewed him and required a deposit of Sh. 200 as safeguard against becoming a public charge. The appellant was unable to make the deposit. The Immigration Officer issued a written order declaring him a prohibited immigrant under section 5(a) and requiring him to leave the Colony within fourteen days. The time limit was extended by ten days on 10 March. The appellant failed to leave and was arrested on 28 March. He was convicted on 26 April 1947 of an offence contrary to section 8 of the Immigration Restriction Ordinance and sentenced to a fine of Sh. 300 with three months imprisonment in default.

Issues

  1. Whether the determination of prohibited immigrant status is a question of fact for the court or a matter for the Immigration Officer alone.
  2. Whether the appellant was a prohibited immigrant within the meaning of section 5(a) of the Immigration Restriction Ordinance.
  3. Whether the Immigration Officer's order was unlawful for failing to grant time to pay the deposit.
  4. Whether obtaining employment after entry negates prohibited immigrant status.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.

Rules and key headnotes

Immigration — Prohibited Immigrant — Determination of Status — Jurisdiction of Court
The question whether a person is or is not a prohibited immigrant is a question of fact to be resolved by the court upon the evidence and is not a matter for the Immigration Officer to the exclusion of the court.
Immigration — Prohibited Immigrant — Without Visible Means of Support — Evidentiary Standard
A person who cannot produce a modest sum seven weeks after entry into the Colony and who fails to show any means whatsoever at the time of entry may properly be found to be a prohibited immigrant as a person without visible means of support or likely to become a public charge under section 5(a) of the Immigration Restriction Ordinance.
Immigration — Prohibited Immigrant — Employment After Entry — Irrelevance to Status
It is no test of whether a person is a prohibited immigrant that he has succeeded in obtaining paid employment after he has entered and is found within the Colony.
Immigration — Deposit Requirement — No Obligation to Grant Time for Payment
There is no obligation upon an Immigration Officer to grant an immigrant time to collect a required deposit before determining prohibited immigrant status.

Legislation cited (3)

  • Immigration Restriction Ordinance (Cap. 62) s.5(a)
  • Immigration Restriction Ordinance (Cap. 62) s.8
  • Immigration Restriction Ordinance (Cap. 62) s.11(1)(a)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Rex v Ali (Criminal Appeal No. 194 of 1947) [1947] EACA 70 (1 January 1947)
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.