Wakilii

Rex v Gandhi and Another (Criminal Appeals Nos. 184 and 185 of 1942)

East African Court of Appeal · [1943] EACA 46 · 1943 Appeals Allowed — Acquittal AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal appeals from convictions by the Resident Magistrate, Nairobi
Decision
Accused acquitted and fines refunded

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 held that there was no refusal to sell under Regulation 15(1) where the accused did not have the specific product requested by the complainant at the requested price, even though they had the same product in different packaging at a higher permitted price. The regulation does not require a vendor to disclose alternative packaging options at different prices when the specific product requested is not in stock.

Outcome

Accused acquitted and fines refunded

Facts

The two accused, general merchants and commission agents trading as Gandhi & Co., were charged with refusing to supply goods under Regulation 15(1) of the Defence (Control of Prices) Regulations. The complainant, Hussein Rahmtulla Gwadhri, requested three 200 lb. bags of National Flour at the permitted price of Sh. 68 per 400 lb. The accused did not have flour in 200 lb. bags but had National Flour packed in 10 lb. bags at a higher permitted price of Sh. 76 per 400 lb. The accused did not disclose to the complainant that they had flour in the smaller packaging. The Resident Magistrate convicted both accused and fined them Sh. 500 each, finding that their failure to disclose the availability of flour in 10 lb. bags constituted an offence.

Issues

  1. Whether the accused committed an offence under Regulation 15(1) of the Defence (Control of Prices) Regulations by failing to disclose that they had National Flour in 10 lb. bags when the complainant requested flour in 200 lb. bags at a lower price.

Orders

  • Appeals allowed.
  • Accused acquitted.
  • Fines directed to be refunded.

Rules and key headnotes

Defence Regulations — Control of Prices — Refusal to Supply Goods
A vendor does not commit an offence of refusing to sell goods under price control regulations where the vendor does not possess the specific product in the packaging and at the price requested by the purchaser, even though the vendor has the same product in different packaging at a different permitted price.
Defence Regulations — Interpretation of 'Refusal to Sell'
The phrase 'refusing to supply or sell goods' in price control regulations must be interpreted according to its clear language and does not extend to requiring a vendor to offer alternative products at different prices when the specific product requested is not in stock.

Legislation cited (1)

  • Defence (Control of Prices) Regulations Regulation 15(1)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Rex v Gandhi and Another (Criminal Appeals Nos. 184 and 185 of 1942) [1943] EACA 46 (1 January 1943)
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.