Wakilii

Rex v Bux (Criminal Appeal No. 239 of 1947)

East African Court of Appeal · [1947] EACA 67 · 1947 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal appeal from magistrate's conviction for receiving stolen property
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 has discretion to allow the prosecution to recall a witness before the close of its case, even after cross-examination has shaken the witness's testimony. Such recall does not constitute prejudice to the defence where the witness had already expressed certainty in identification and the defence chose not to cross-examine on the fresh evidence. The conviction for receiving stolen property was upheld where expert identification evidence, coupled with the presence of other stolen motor parts and a false explanation, established guilty knowledge beyond reasonable doubt.

Outcome

Conviction and sentence upheld

Facts

The appellant was convicted of receiving stolen property, specifically a generator. The prosecution's main witness, Mr. Wilkie, testified that a generator found on the appellant's premises was recently stolen from an engine belonging to the Construction Company, Nairobi. During cross-examination, the witness made admissions that weakened his identification evidence. After re-examination, but before closing its case, the prosecution obtained leave to recall Mr. Wilkie. On recall, the witness explained for the first time that red paint remained on the generator because its position on the engine prevented green paint from reaching that part. The defence objected to the recall and did not cross-examine on the fresh evidence. Other motor parts found on the appellant's premises were also proven to be stolen. The appellant's explanation was found to be untrue.

Issues

  1. Whether the magistrate was justified in allowing the prosecution to recall a witness after cross-examination but before the close of the prosecution's case.
  2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to establish that the generator found in the appellant's possession was the stolen generator.
  3. Whether the sentence imposed was excessive.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.

Rules and key headnotes

Criminal Procedure — Recall of Witnesses — Discretion of Court
A trial court has discretion to allow the prosecution to recall a witness before the close of its case, even where the witness has been shaken in cross-examination, and an appellate court will not interfere with the exercise of that discretion.
Criminal Procedure — Recall of Witnesses — Before Close of Case
An application to recall a witness before the closing of the prosecution's case will ordinarily not be rejected, whereas recall after the case is closed will only be permitted in special circumstances.
Evidence — Recall of Witnesses — No Prejudice Where Defence Declines Cross-Examination
No prejudice is occasioned to the defence by the recall of a prosecution witness where the witness had already expressed certainty in his evidence-in-chief and the defence chose not to cross-examine on the fresh evidence adduced upon recall.
Criminal Law — Receiving Stolen Property — Proof of Guilty Knowledge
Guilty knowledge in a charge of receiving stolen property may be established by expert identification evidence, the presence of other stolen items on the accused's premises, and the falsity of the accused's explanation.

Legislation cited (1)

  • Criminal Procedure Code s.150

Cases cited (1)

  • R v Scigley (6 C.A.R. 106)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Rex v Bux (Criminal Appeal No. 239 of 1947) [1947] EACA 67 (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.