Wakilii

Rex v Din (Criminal Appeal No. 61 of 1945)

East African Court of Appeal · [1945] EACA 22 · 1945 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal appeal from conviction by High Court of Tanganyika for unlawful possession of diamonds
Decision
Conviction and sentence upheld; bail money ordered returned

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 dismissed the appeal against conviction and sentence for unlawful possession of diamonds. The burden of proof that an article is not a diamond rests on the person alleging it is not a diamond under section 18 of the Diamond Industry Protection Ordinance. Although the sentence was severe, it was not excessive given the gravity of the offence and the need for exemplary punishment to deter illicit diamond trafficking during wartime. However, the order withholding bail money was set aside as unlawful—an accused who appears for trial as required is entitled to have bail money returned.

Outcome

Conviction and sentence upheld; bail money ordered returned

Facts

The appellant was convicted of being in unlawful possession of diamonds contrary to section 3(1) of the Diamond Industry Protection Ordinance (Tanganyika Cap. 103). He was sentenced to five years imprisonment with hard labour and a fine of Sh. 10,000. The appellant was a first offender. The diamonds found in his possession were valued at Sh. 760. The trial judge also ordered that bail money be withheld until proof was provided that it was not the accused's property or until the fine was paid. The appellant appealed both conviction and sentence, arguing inter alia that the evidence failed to establish that the articles were diamonds within the statutory definition of 'any rough or uncut diamond'. The appellant was a butcher and cattle dealer in Shinyanga who dealt in large quantities of cattle sent to Dar es Salaam.

Issues

  1. Whether the evidence established that the diamonds found in the accused's possession came within the definition of 'diamond' in the Diamond Industry Protection Ordinance.
  2. Whether the sentence of five years imprisonment with hard labour and a fine of Sh. 10,000 was excessive.
  3. Whether the trial judge's order to withhold bail money until proof it was not the accused's property or until payment of the fine was lawful.

Orders

  • Appeal against conviction dismissed.
  • Appeal against sentence dismissed.
  • Order withholding bail money set aside.
  • Bail money to be returned to whomsoever deposited it.

Rules and key headnotes

Evidence — Burden of Proof — Statutory Reversal — Diamond Industry Protection Ordinance
Where the question in issue is whether any article is or is not a diamond under the Diamond Industry Protection Ordinance, the burden of proof that such article is not a diamond rests on the person who alleges that it is not a diamond, and in the absence of such proof the article is deemed to be a diamond.
Criminal Law — Sentencing — Exemplary Sentences — Wartime Offences
An exemplary sentence may be imposed for unlawful possession of diamonds where the offence is easy to commit and difficult to detect, there is substantial leakage from mines despite precautions, and the diamonds are essential for wartime industrial purposes and munitions-making, notwithstanding that the accused is a first offender.
Criminal Law — Bail — Return of Cash Bail — Accused's Compliance with Conditions
When an accused person released on cash bail to appear in court for trial does so appear, he is entitled to have his bail money returned to him, the condition of the bail having been satisfied by his appearance.
Criminal Law — Fines — Realization — Procedure
Proceedings for the realization of a fine must be taken in the manner prescribed by the Criminal Procedure Code and a court has no authority to order that bail money be withheld until a fine is paid.

Legislation cited (3)

  • Diamond Industry Protection Ordinance s.3(1) (Tanganyika Cap. 103)
  • Diamond Industry Protection Ordinance s.18 (Tanganyika Cap. 103)
  • Criminal Procedure Code

Cases cited (1)

  • Rex v Kinumbi s/o Thuo (Kenya Criminal Revision Case No. 267 of 1943)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Rex v Din (Criminal Appeal No. 61 of 1945) [1945] EACA 22 (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.