Wakilii

Rex v Hulatt (Cr. App. .142-1932.)

East African Court of Appeal · [1932] EACA 26 · 1932 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal appeal from conviction by jury at Nairobi on charges under section 258 of the Penal Code
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

The Court of Appeal held that section 245(2)(e) of the Penal Code must be construed strictly as creating an irrebuttable deeming provision, not a rebuttable presumption. Where a person takes money with intent to use it at will although intending to repay, that person is deemed to act fraudulently. The trial judge properly directed the jury and there was no misdirection. Appeal dismissed.

Outcome

Conviction and sentence upheld

Facts

The appellant was tried by jury at Nairobi on three offences under section 258 of the Penal Code. He was convicted on the first two counts and acquitted on the third. During deliberations, the jury foreman asked the trial judge whether they were required to observe a strict interpretation of section 245(2)(e) of the Penal Code. The judge answered affirmatively and paraphrased the section. Defence counsel suggested the fraudulent intention deemed to arise under the section could be rebutted. The jury returned their verdict without further retirement. The appeal challenged the conviction on grounds of misdirection.

Issues

  1. Whether the trial judge misdirected the jury on the interpretation of section 245(2)(e) of the Penal Code.
  2. Whether section 245(2)(e) creates a rebuttable presumption of fraudulent intent or establishes an irrebuttable deeming provision.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.

Rules and key headnotes

Theft — Definition — Fraudulent Intent — Penal Code s.245(2)(e)
Section 245(2)(e) of the Penal Code creates an irrebuttable deeming provision, not a rebuttable presumption. A person who takes money with intent to use it at will, although intending afterwards to repay the amount, is deemed to act fraudulently as a matter of law.
Penal Statutes — Strict Construction — Deeming Provisions
Where a penal statute uses clear and unambiguous language stating that a person 'is deemed' to act in a particular manner, the provision must be construed strictly according to its plain meaning and does not create a rebuttable presumption.
Trial — Jury Direction — Misdirection
Where a trial judge correctly states the law in response to a jury question during deliberations, there is no misdirection even if defence counsel suggests an alternative interpretation that the judge does not adopt.

Legislation cited (2)

  • Penal Code s.245(2)(e)
  • Penal Code s.258

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Rex v Hulatt (Cr. App. .142-1932.) [1932] EACA 26 (1 January 1932)
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.