Rex v Ali (Criminal Appeal No. 253 of 1945.)
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 second appeal does not lie on a point of fact. The magistrate's finding rejecting the accused's explanation of how he lawfully acquired military stores was a finding of fact. The High Court had already reviewed this finding on first appeal. The Court of Appeal, sitting in second appeal, had no jurisdiction to interfere with concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts. Appeal dismissed.
Outcome
Conviction upheld on second appeal
Facts
On 16 May 1945, Superintendent Jenkinson discovered engine No. B.F.C. 435065 affixed to a Chevrolet vehicle owned by the accused at Subzali's garage in Arusha. The engine originated from stores in regimental charge and had been affixed to a War Department Chevrolet vehicle stolen on 5 May 1945. Evidence showed the accused brought the engine to the garage around 14 May 1945 and had it fitted to his vehicle by Subzali's mechanics. The accused's vehicle had arrived at the garage without an engine. The magistrate rejected the accused's explanation of how he lawfully acquired the engine and convicted him of unlawful possession of military stores under Regulation 15(2) of the Defence (His Majesty's Forces) Regulations 1941. The High Court affirmed the conviction on first appeal.
Issues
- Whether a second appeal lies on a point of fact.
- Whether the magistrate's finding rejecting the accused's account of how he came by the military stores was a finding of fact from which no appeal lies to the second appellate court.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (1)
- Defence (His Majesty's Forces) Regulations 1941 (Tanganyika) Regulation 15(2)
Cases cited (1)
- Carr-Briant (29 C.A.R. 76)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.