Wakilii

Rex v Kala (Criminal AppealNo. 71 of 1941)

East African Court of Appeal · [1941] EACA 66 · 1941 Leave to Appeal Refused AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to appeal from Supreme Court of Kenya appellate judgment on question of fact
Decision
Application for leave to appeal dismissed

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 refused leave to appeal, holding that a second appeal cannot be entertained unless it raises a point of law. Following Ranigopal v Shamskhaton, the Court held that a third court cannot entertain an appeal on the soundness of findings of fact by the second court where there is evidence to support the decision. The evidentiary point raised was a matter of fact already considered by lower courts.

Outcome

Application for leave to appeal dismissed

Facts

The appellant was originally convicted in a subordinate court. His appeal to the Supreme Court of Kenya was dismissed. He then sought leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal for Eastern Africa on a question of fact. The prosecution had not produced the counterfoil of a cheque, and the appellant argued this raised a presumption under Evidence Act s.114 that no counterfoil existed. Both the magistrate and Supreme Court had considered this point and found ample other evidence to support the conviction.

Issues

  1. Whether leave to appeal should be granted on a question of fact in a second appeal.
  2. Whether the omission to produce a cheque counterfoil raised a presumption under Evidence Act s.114 that no counterfoil existed.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal refused.

Rules and key headnotes

Criminal Law & Procedure — Appeals — Second Appeals — Scope of Review — Questions of Fact
A second appeal cannot be entertained unless it is on a point of law; a third court cannot entertain any appeal upon the soundness of findings of fact by the second court where there is evidence to support the decision.
Evidence — Presumptions — Evidence Act s.114 — Failure to Produce Document
Where the prosecution fails to produce a document such as a cheque counterfoil, the question of whether a presumption arises under Evidence Act s.114 is a matter of fact for the trial court and appellate court to consider; if there is ample other evidence and both courts have considered the point, their decision is final.

Legislation cited (1)

Cases cited (1)

  • Ranigopal v Shamskhaton (20 Cal. 99)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Rex v Kala (Criminal AppealNo. 71 of 1941) [1941] EACA 66 (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.