Wakilii

Rex v Central African Contractors Ltd (Criminal Appeal No. 198 of 1944)

East African Court of Appeal · [1945] EACA 54 · 1945 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal appeal from convictions by Resident Magistrate, Nairobi
Decision
Convictions and sentences upheld against Central African Contractors Ltd

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 regulation 11(1) of the Defence (Control of Prices) Regulations 1943 imposes absolute liability and mens rea is not an essential element of the offence. The cost of transport is exclusively within the knowledge of the accused, who bear the burden of proving it. An invoice is prima facie evidence of sale under regulation 22. The company was found to be trading in all commodities including fish and eggs, not merely purchasing on behalf of others. Appeal dismissed.

Outcome

Convictions and sentences upheld against Central African Contractors Ltd

Facts

Central African Contractors Ltd was convicted by the Resident Magistrate, Nairobi, of five offences of selling price-regulated goods at prices exceeding the maximum fixed prices contrary to regulation 11(1) of the Defence (Control of Prices) Regulations 1943. The first three counts concerned the sale of lake fish on 5 June 1943, the fourth count concerned the sale of 220 eggs on 12 June 1943, and the fifth count concerned the sale of 5,100 lb of potatoes on 30 August 1943. All sales were made to No. 351 P.O.W. Camp, Nairobi. The company appealed, arguing inter alia that the difference in price was accounted for by transport costs and commission, and that it was not trading but merely purchasing on behalf of the Camp.

Issues

  1. Whether the cost of transport is a matter exclusively in the knowledge of the accused and whether the onus is on them to prove it.
  2. Whether regulation 11(1) of the Defence (Control of Prices) Regulations 1943 imposes absolute liability such that mens rea is not an essential element of the offence.
  3. Whether an invoice constitutes prima facie evidence of sale under regulation 22.
  4. Whether the company was trading or merely purchasing on behalf of the P.O.W. Camp in respect of fish and eggs.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.

Rules and key headnotes

Evidence — Burden of Proof — Cost of Transport — Sections 105 and 106 Indian Evidence Act
The cost of transport is a matter exclusively in the knowledge of the accused and the onus is on them to prove it under sections 105 and 106 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Criminal Law — Strict Liability Offences — Absence of Mens Rea — Defence (Control of Prices) Regulations
Regulation 11(1) of the Defence (Control of Prices) Regulations 1943 imposes an absolute liability and mens rea is not an essential element of an offence against that regulation.
Evidence — Documentary Evidence — Invoice as Prima Facie Evidence of Sale
An invoice is prima facie evidence of sale under regulation 22 of the Defence (Control of Prices) Regulations 1943.
Criminal Law — Corporate Criminal Liability — Liability of Body Corporate and Officers
Under regulation 25(4) of the Defence (Control of Prices) Regulations, when a body corporate is charged with an offence, every person who at the time of the commission of the offence was an officer of the body corporate may be charged jointly with the body corporate, and where the body corporate is convicted the officer shall be deemed guilty unless he proves the offence was committed without his knowledge or that he exercised due diligence to prevent it.

Legislation cited (10)

  • Defence (Control of Prices) Regulations 1943 reg.11(1)
  • Defence (Control of Prices) Regulations 1943 reg.22
  • Defence (Control of Prices) Regulations 1943 reg.25(4)
  • Defence (Control of Prices) Regulations 1942 reg.25(4)
  • Defence Regulations 1939 reg.93(1)
  • Defence Regulations 1939 reg.93(2)
  • Indian Evidence Act s.105
  • Indian Evidence Act s.106
  • Price Control Order N.13a of 1943
  • Price Control Order No.21 of 1943

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Rex v Central African Contractors Ltd (Criminal Appeal No. 198 of 1944) [1945] EACA 54 (1 January 1945)
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.