Wakilii

Rex v Hasham (Criminal Appeal No. 128 of 1941)

East African Court of Appeal · [1941] EACA 93 · 1941 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Second appeal from decision of High Court of Tanganyika affirming conviction on appeal from subordinate court
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

A second appeal under section 314 of the Tanganyika Criminal Procedure Code lies only on a point of law, not on a point of fact or mixed law and fact. Once competent evidence exists to support a finding of fact, the second appellate court cannot review the sufficiency of that evidence or the reasonableness of the finding. The court distinguished the broader powers of the English Court of Criminal Appeal under the Criminal Appeal Act 1907.

Outcome

Conviction and sentence upheld

Facts

The appellant was convicted by a subordinate court at Lindi of knowingly receiving stolen property under section 295 of the Tanganyika Penal Code and sentenced to six months imprisonment with hard labour. His appeal to the High Court was dismissed. He appealed to the Court of Appeal for Eastern Africa, arguing that there was no evidence to support the conviction and that the verdict was unreasonable. The prosecution case relied on evidence from accomplices (thieves Bakari Issa and Juma Mohamed) and corroborating witnesses. The appellant challenged the competence of the corroborating evidence and the sufficiency of the evidence overall.

Issues

  1. Whether a second appeal lies on a point of fact or mixed law and fact under section 314 of the Tanganyika Criminal Procedure Code.
  2. Whether there was competent evidence to support the conviction for receiving stolen property.
  3. Whether the Court of Appeal can interfere with a finding of fact on the ground that the verdict is unreasonable or unsupported by sufficient evidence.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.

Rules and key headnotes

Criminal Law & Procedure — Appeals — Second Appeal — Scope of Review — Point of Law Only
A second appeal under section 314 of the Tanganyika Criminal Procedure Code can only be entertained on a point of law and does not lie on a point of fact or of mixed law and fact.
Evidence — Sufficiency of Evidence — Second Appeal — No Review of Sufficiency
Although a second appeal lies on the ground that there was no evidence to support a finding of fact, once it is established that there was some competent evidence to support a finding of fact, it is not open to the court on second appeal to go into the question of the sufficiency of that evidence or the reasonableness of the finding.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Appeals — Second Appeal — Misdirection by Lower Court — Correct Direction by First Appellate Court
Even if the court of first instance incorrectly directed itself as to the onus on the accused and the court of first appeal was wrong in holding that the magistrate had correctly directed himself, if the court of first appeal correctly directed itself and found on competent evidence that the story told by the appellant was not reasonably credible, it is not open to the second appellate court to take a different view.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Appeals — Distinction Between Tanganyika Criminal Procedure Code and English Criminal Appeal Act 1907
The powers of the Court of Appeal for Eastern Africa under section 314 of the Tanganyika Criminal Procedure Code are more circumscribed than those of the English Court of Criminal Appeal under section 4 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1907, which expressly permits interference with findings of fact where the verdict is unreasonable or cannot be supported by the evidence.

Legislation cited (4)

  • Tanganyika Criminal Procedure Code s.314
  • Tanganyika Criminal Procedure Code s.332(1)
  • Tanganyika Penal Code s.295
  • Criminal Appeal Act 1907 s.4

Cases cited (1)

  • Cabal v Walton-on-Thames Urban Council [1914] AC 102

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Rex v Hasham (Criminal Appeal No. 128 of 1941) [1941] EACA 93 (1 January 1941)
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.