Wakilii

Rex v Gidoomal (Criminal Appeal No. 156 of 1944 (Case Stated))

East African Court of Appeal · [1944] EACA 3 · 1944 Appeal Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Case stated by the Resident Magistrate on application of the Attorney General following acquittal under Defence (Control of Prices) Regulations 1943
Decision
Matter remitted to Magistrate for conviction and sentencing

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 although 'like or similar goods' does not require identity, it must not be given too wide a meaning. A shirt costing Sh. 9/45 cannot reasonably be said to be like or similar to a shirt costing Sh. 2/48. The substantial price difference indicated substantially dissimilar quality. The magistrate erred in finding the defence evidence rebutted the Price Controller's certificate. No relevant evidence was adduced to establish that the cheap English shirts were like or similar to the Van Heusen shirts for purposes of calculating permitted profit percentage.

Outcome

Matter remitted to Magistrate for conviction and sentencing

Facts

On 6 September 1943, the accused sold four khaki Van Heusen shirts at Sh. 30 each (total Sh. 120) in Mombasa. The Price Controller's certificate showed the pre-war cost and selling prices of Van Heusen shirts in Mombasa were Sh. 9/45 and Sh. 15/50 respectively. The accused had not imported Van Heusen shirts before the war but had imported Japanese shirts (pre-war cost Sh. 1/42, selling price Sh. 8/50) and English and American shirts (pre-war cost Sh. 2/48, selling price Sh. 7). The prosecution charged that the accused exceeded the maximum permitted price by Sh. 36/68. The accused contended he was entitled to base his profit percentage on the pre-war American and English shirts he had imported. The Magistrate accepted this defence and dismissed the information.

Issues

  1. Whether the expression 'like or similar goods' in Regulation 8 of the Defence (Control of Prices) Regulations 1943 encompassed English shirts costing Sh. 2/48 when compared to Van Heusen shirts costing Sh. 9/45.
  2. Whether the defence evidence rebutted the prima facie evidence of the Price Controller's certificate as to maximum permitted price.

Orders

  • Case referred back to the Magistrate to record a conviction.
  • Magistrate directed to pass such sentence as in his discretion may seem fit.

Rules and key headnotes

Price Control Regulations — Interpretation of 'like or similar goods' — Quality and price as indicators of similarity
In determining whether goods are 'like or similar' under price control regulations, substantial differences in price between articles manufactured in the same country indicate substantial dissimilarity in quality, and such articles cannot be treated as like or similar for purposes of calculating permitted profit margins.
Price Control — Evidentiary value of Price Controller's certificate — Burden of rebuttal
A Price Controller's certificate under the Defence (Control of Prices) Regulations constitutes prima facie evidence of pre-war cost and selling prices, and can only be rebutted by relevant evidence showing the profit ordinarily taken on goods that are genuinely like or similar to those sold.
Price Control Regulations — 'Like or similar goods' distinguished from 'identical goods'
The expression 'like or similar goods' in price control legislation does not require the goods to be identical, but it must not be given too wide a meaning so as to encompass goods of substantially different quality as evidenced by substantial price differences.

Legislation cited (2)

  • Defence (Control of Prices) Regulations 1943 Regulation 8
  • Defence (Control of Prices) Regulations 1943 Regulation 20

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Rex v Gidoomal (Criminal Appeal No. 156 of 1944 (Case Stated)) [1944] EACA 3 (1 January 1944)
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.