Wakilii

Rex v Amina and Another (Criminal Appeals Nos. 259 and 260 of 1948 Consolidated)

East African Court of Appeal · [1949] EACA 29 · 1949 Appeal Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Second appeal from Supreme Court of Kenya upholding convictions from Resident Magistrate's Court for offences under Rent Restriction Ordinance
Decision
First appellant's conviction on first count upheld with binding over order. Second appellant's conviction on first count upheld with fine and restitution order. Second appellant's convictions on second, fourth and sixth counts quashed.

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

An accused cannot be convicted of aiding and abetting an offence which has not been committed by the principal. Where the trial magistrate acquitted the principal accused on certain counts, the conviction of the co-accused as aider and abettor on those counts could not be sustained. Tenants who pay illegal premiums under duress of housing shortage are not accomplices to the landlord's offence under rent restriction legislation. A person in possession of premises with authority to let them is a 'landlord' within the statutory definition even if not the registered owner.

Outcome

First appellant's conviction on first count upheld with binding over order. Second appellant's conviction on first count upheld with fine and restitution order. Second appellant's convictions on second, fourth and sixth counts quashed.

Facts

The appellants, wife and husband, were charged with six counts under the Rent Restriction Ordinance 1940. The wife was charged as principal and the husband as aider and abettor on each count. Counts one and four alleged requiring payment of a premium (key money of Sh. 3,000) for granting a tenancy contrary to s.13(2). Counts two, three, five and six alleged accepting excess rent contrary to s.8. The trial magistrate convicted the wife only on count one and acquitted her on all other counts. The magistrate convicted the husband on counts one, two, four and six. The Supreme Court dismissed their appeals. The wife had possession of premises under an agreement with the registered owner and exercised rights to let the premises to tenants.

Issues

  1. Whether an accused charged as aider and abettor can be convicted when the principal has been acquitted of the offence.
  2. Whether tenants who pay illegal premiums or excess rent are accomplices requiring corroboration of their evidence.
  3. Whether a person in possession of premises with authority to let them falls within the definition of 'landlord' under the Rent Restriction Ordinance.
  4. Whether the Rent Restriction Ordinance ceased to operate on 8 May 1945 when active hostilities between the United Kingdom and Germany ended.

Orders

  • Appeals against conviction on the first count dismissed.
  • Conviction of the second appellant (Hussein Mohamed Moti) on the second, fourth and sixth counts quashed.
  • Sentences on the second, fourth and sixth counts set aside.
  • Order that the first appellant (Amina) be bound over to come up for sentence within three years under Criminal Procedure Code s.340 affirmed.
  • Order that the first appellant pay Sh. 500 costs affirmed.
  • Order that the second appellant pay fine of Sh. 2,000 or three months' imprisonment with hard labour in default affirmed.
  • Order that the second appellant repay Sh. 3,000 to the persons entitled under Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restriction) Ordinance s.13(a) affirmed.
  • Order that the second appellant pay Sh. 500 costs affirmed.
  • Any sums already paid by the second appellant in respect of the quashed convictions to be repaid to him.

Rules and key headnotes

Aiding and Abetting — Conviction Requires Principal Offence
An accused person cannot be convicted of being an aider and abettor to an offence which has not been committed by the principal offender.
Accomplice Evidence — Tenants Under Rent Restriction Legislation
A tenant who pays illegal key money or excess rent to a landlord because of anxiety to obtain accommodation during a housing shortage is not an accomplice to the landlord's offence under rent restriction legislation and their evidence does not require corroboration as accomplice evidence.
Definition of Landlord — Rent Restriction Ordinance
A person who has possession of premises under an agreement with the registered owner and exercises the right to let the premises to tenants falls within the definition of 'landlord' in the Rent Restriction Ordinance as a person entitled to possession of the dwelling house, even though not the registered owner.
Duration of War — Emergency Legislation
Where legislation provides that it shall operate for 'one year after the war', a state of war continues for the purposes of that legislation until a treaty of peace is concluded and military occupation ends, notwithstanding the cessation of active hostilities.

Legislation cited (10)

  • Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restriction) Ordinance 1940 s.13(2)
  • Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restriction) Ordinance 1940 s.8
  • Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restriction) Ordinance 1940 s.2
  • Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restriction) Ordinance 1940 s.4
  • Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restriction) Ordinance 1940 s.20(1)
  • Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restriction) Ordinance 1940 s.13(a)
  • Penal Code s.22
  • Criminal Procedure Code s.340
  • Criminal Procedure Code s.171(1)
  • Courts (Emergency Powers) Ordinance 1944 s.1(2)

Cases cited (2)

  • Rowley v Rex (32 Cr App R 147)
  • Rex v Gajjan Singh (14 EACA 111)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Rex v Amina and Another (Criminal Appeals Nos. 259 and 260 of 1948 Consolidated) [1949] EACA 29 (1 January 1949)
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.