Wakilii

Rex v Gilani (Criminal Appeal No. 254 of 1945)

East African Court of Appeal · [1946] EACA 68 · 1946 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal appeal from conviction by Resident Magistrate, Mombasa
Decision
Conviction 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

Where an information contains two counts each raising conflicting presumptions under section 242 of the Customs Ordinance 1926, the presumptions do not neutralize each other because each count is a separate information for purposes of evidence and judgment. The presumption applicable to each count must be considered independently. A trial magistrate may accept part of an accused's evidence while rejecting other parts as lies without misdirection.

Outcome

Conviction upheld

Facts

The appellant was charged with two counts of breaching Regulation 119 of the Customs Regulations 1926. Count 1 alleged he took delivery of seven trunks of trade goods from Tanganyika Territory without having Advice B on 27 July 1945 in Mombasa. Count 2 alleged he entered the territory bringing goods without Advice B and failed to furnish a detailed list to the relevant officer within 24 hours. The prosecution adduced no evidence at trial, relying solely on section 242 of the Customs Ordinance 1926, which deems the prosecutor's averments proved absent proof to the contrary. The appellant gave evidence and called witnesses. He was convicted on Count 1 by the Resident Magistrate, Mombasa.

Issues

  1. Whether conflicting presumptions arising from two separate counts in an information neutralize each other under section 242 of the Customs Ordinance 1926.
  2. Whether the learned Resident Magistrate misdirected himself in rejecting parts of the accused's evidence while accepting other parts.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.

Rules and key headnotes

Evidence — Presumptions — Statutory Presumptions — Effect of Section 242 Customs Ordinance 1926
Section 242 of the Customs Ordinance 1926 constitutes the averments in charges presumptions of law and places on the accused the onus of rebutting them.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Multiple Counts — Conflicting Presumptions — Treatment as Separate Informations
Each count in an information is for the purpose of evidence and judgment a separate information. Where two counts raise conflicting presumptions, they do not neutralize each other because each presumption applies to a different count and must be considered independently.
Evidence — Assessment of Testimony — Acceptance of Part of Accused's Evidence
A trial magistrate may properly accept part of an accused's evidence while rejecting other parts as lies, particularly where the accepted portion is supported by other evidence.

Legislation cited (4)

  • Customs Regulations 1926 Regulation 119
  • Customs Regulations 1926 Regulation 118(g)
  • Customs Regulations 1926 Regulation 118(1)
  • Customs Ordinance 1926 s.242

Cases cited (1)

  • Reg v Wiltshire (1881) 6 QB 366

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Rex v Gilani (Criminal Appeal No. 254 of 1945) [1946] EACA 68 (1 January 1946)
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.