Wakilii

Rex v Gaturo (Criminal Appeal No. 340 of 1948)

East African Court of Appeal · [1948] EACA 77 · 1948 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal appeal from conviction and sentence for assault under Penal Code s.247(e)
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

Held that although mere words cannot constitute assault, when accompanied by acts indicating intention to use violence, an assault is committed. The appellant's conduct of seizing a heavy iron stick, raising it threateningly, and demanding to know which Elder to kill while the Elders retreated constituted technical assault. The Magistrate's failure to record compliance with s.209 Criminal Procedure Code did not vitiate proceedings where the record showed the appellant made his defence and no failure of justice occurred. Sentence of Sh.400 fine was not excessive given the conduct was directed against administration of justice.

Outcome

Conviction and sentence upheld

Facts

Native Tribunal Elders were inquiring into a trespass case against the appellant's son on instructions of the Tribunal President. The appellant approached the Elders in anger, flung their bundle of case sticks against the ankles of one Elder, seized a heavy iron pointed stick, raised it threateningly like a spear, and demanded to know which was the senior Elder so that he might kill him. The Elders stated they would not give judgment and retreated from the scene. The appellant was charged under Penal Code s.247(e) with assaulting a person on account of an act done in execution of a duty imposed by law, convicted, and sentenced to a fine of Sh.400 or three months detention in default.

Issues

  1. Whether on the evidence accepted by the Magistrate the offence of assault was disclosed.
  2. Whether the failure of the Magistrate to record compliance with Criminal Procedure Code s.209 vitiates the proceedings.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.

Rules and key headnotes

Assault — Elements — Words Accompanied by Threatening Acts
Although mere words can never amount to assault, if they are accompanied by an act which indicates an intention to use violence against the person of another, an assault is committed.
Assault — Penal Code s.247(e) — Assault on Person Executing Duty Imposed by Law
Where an accused seizes a heavy iron stick, raises it threateningly, and demands to know which tribunal elder to kill while the elders retreat, there is sufficient evidence from which it can be inferred that a technical assault has been committed against persons executing a duty imposed by law.
Criminal Procedure — Section 209 Criminal Procedure Code — Failure to Record Compliance
The failure of a Magistrate to record compliance with Criminal Procedure Code s.209 before putting an accused on his defence is not necessarily fatal to a conviction, but the Court will in every such case consider most earnestly whether such omission may have occasioned a failure of justice and will not hesitate to intervene if there is any doubt.
Criminal Procedure — Section 209 — Determining Whether Failure of Justice Occurred
Where the record shows the appellant made his defence, the Magistrate recorded there were no defence witnesses, the appellant was not sworn or cross-examined indicating he was told the difference between giving evidence and making an unsworn statement, and the evidence is relatively clear and simple with the appellant's statement answering material points, no failure of justice has occurred despite the Magistrate's failure to record compliance with s.209.

Legislation cited (2)

  • Penal Code s.247(e)
  • Criminal Procedure Code s.209

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Rex v Gaturo (Criminal Appeal No. 340 of 1948) [1948] EACA 77 (1 January 1948)
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.