Wakilii

Rex v Bhanji (Criminal Appeal No. 122 of 1947)

East African Court of Appeal · [1947] EACA 40 · 1947 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal appeal from conviction in the High Court of Tanganyika for selling price-regulated goods at excessive prices
Decision
Conviction and sentence on Count 1 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

A purchaser of goods at an excessive price is not an accomplice to the offence of selling at an excessive price because he cannot be guilty of selling to himself. To be an accomplice within the corroboration rule, a person must be actually guilty of the offence charged. The purchaser was a victim, not an accomplice, and his evidence did not require corroboration. Appeal dismissed.

Outcome

Conviction and sentence on Count 1 upheld

Facts

The appellant was convicted in the District Court of Rufiji, Tanganyika, of selling sugar to Ali Saidi at prices exceeding the legal maximum on three occasions in November 1946, contrary to Defence (Control of Prices) Regulations 1946. Ali Saidi testified that he paid Sh. 25 to the appellant and received sugar in three instalments totalling 25 kilos. The appellant denied the entire transaction. The witness Salim corroborated that a sale and delivery of sugar occurred in instalments. The District Court convicted on all three counts. On first appeal, the High Court quashed convictions on Counts 2 and 3 but upheld the conviction on Count 1. The appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal for Eastern Africa, arguing that the trial court wrongly accepted the uncorroborated evidence of Ali Saidi and Salim, both alleged to be accomplices.

Issues

  1. Whether the purchaser of goods at an excessive price is an accomplice to the offence of selling at an excessive price, such that his evidence requires corroboration.
  2. Whether the trial court wrongly convicted the appellant on uncorroborated evidence of accomplices.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.

Rules and key headnotes

Evidence — Accomplice Evidence — Definition of Accomplice — Purchaser in Price Control Offence
To render a person an accomplice whose evidence requires corroboration, it is necessary to show that his activities in connection with the offence charged amount to actual guilt of that offence.
Criminal Law — Price Control Offences — Accomplice Status of Purchaser
A purchaser of goods at an excessive price cannot be an accomplice to the offence of selling at an excessive price because the purchaser cannot possibly be guilty of selling to himself, which is the only offence charged.
Evidence — Corroboration — Extent Required — Material Particulars
Even in the case of an accomplice, it is not necessary that corroboration should cover every part, even every material part, of the story. All that is necessary is that the story should be corroborated in some material part connecting the accused with the offence.
Criminal Procedure — Appeals — Fresh Evidence — Exceptional Circumstances
An appellate court will call fresh evidence only in most exceptional circumstances. No appellate court will grant an application to call fresh evidence on an affidavit merely stating that there is a witness who can give evidence that one of the witnesses at trial gave perjured evidence on a material point.

Legislation cited (1)

  • Defence (Control of Prices) (Consolidation) Regulations 1946 Regulation 11(1)

Cases cited (1)

  • Rex v King (10 C.A.R. 117)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Rex v Bhanji (Criminal Appeal No. 122 of 1947) [1947] EACA 40 (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.