Wakilii

Rex v Bulejeya (Criminal Appeal No. 68-1935.)

East African Court of Appeal · [1935] EACA 122 · 1935 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal appeal from High Court of Uganda following retrial ordered after conviction quashed for procedural irregularities
Decision
Conviction and sentence confirmed

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 309(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Uganda), which permits an appellate court to order an accused to be tried by a court of competent jurisdiction, is not limited to cases where the first proceedings were held without jurisdiction. The provision applies equally where a conviction is quashed for procedural irregularities before a court that had jurisdiction. The words should not be construed narrowly to exclude retrials ordered for reasons other than lack of jurisdiction. The decision in R. v. Cheresio was overruled.

Outcome

Conviction and sentence confirmed

Facts

The appellant was tried and convicted of murder by a Special District Court. On revision, the Acting Chief Justice quashed the conviction on grounds of serious procedural irregularities, including failure to comply with section 269 of the Criminal Procedure Code regarding the accused's right to make an unsworn statement or give sworn evidence, and improper reference to a statement made before the committing magistrate that was not admitted in evidence. The Acting Chief Justice ordered that the accused be tried by a court of competent jurisdiction. The appellant was retried and again convicted. On confirmation, the Chief Justice of Uganda expressed doubt whether he could reverse the order for retrial in light of a recent decision of the Uganda Court of Appeal in R. v. Cheresio holding that section 309(1) did not permit retrials except where the first court lacked jurisdiction. The Chief Justice advised the appellant to appeal to the Court of Appeal for Eastern Africa on the ground that the retrial was invalid.

Issues

  1. Whether section 309(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Uganda) empowers a court to order a retrial where a conviction is quashed for procedural irregularities, or whether the power to order trial by a court of competent jurisdiction is limited to cases where the first proceedings were held without jurisdiction.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Decision in R. v. Cheresio (Uganda Cr. App. 10/1935) overruled.

Rules and key headnotes

Criminal Procedure — Appellate Powers — Retrial — Section 309(1) Criminal Procedure Code
Section 309(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Uganda), which empowers an appellate court on reversing a conviction to order the accused to be tried by a court of competent jurisdiction, is not limited to cases where the first proceedings were held without jurisdiction but extends to cases where a conviction is quashed for procedural irregularities or other reasons.
Statutory Interpretation — Criminal Procedure — Construction of Remedial Powers
Where an appellate court quashes a conviction for procedural irregularities after a trial before a court of competent jurisdiction, an order for retrial is necessary to permit the Crown to proceed again; without such an order, the Crown would be free to proceed de novo only where the first trial was a nullity for lack of jurisdiction.
Criminal Procedure — Discharge versus Retrial — Effect of Appellate Order
An order of discharge is appropriate where the first trial was a nullity by reason of lack of jurisdiction, leaving the Crown free to proceed de novo without a court order; an order for retrial is appropriate where the accused has been in peril before a court of competent jurisdiction but the conviction is reversed for irregularities or misreception of evidence.

Legislation cited (8)

  • Criminal Procedure Code (Uganda) s.309(1)
  • Criminal Procedure Code (Uganda) s.16
  • Criminal Procedure Code (Uganda) s.269
  • Criminal Procedure Code (Uganda) s.317
  • Criminal Procedure Code (Uganda) s.15
  • Criminal Procedure Code (Uganda) s.11(2)
  • Criminal Procedure Code (Uganda) s.312
  • Indian Criminal Procedure Code s.423

Cases cited (2)

  • Rex v Cheresio (Uganda Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1935)
  • Satis Chandra Das Bose v. Queen-Empress (27 Cal. 172)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Rex v Bulejeya (Criminal Appeal No. 68-1935.) [1935] EACA 122 (1 January 1935)
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.