Wakilii

Rex v Kampala Oil, Flour and Soap Manufacturing Co., Ltd. and Others (Criminal Appeals Nos. 251, 252 and 253 of 1947)

East African Court of Appeal · [1947] EACA 50 · 1947 Appeal Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal appeals from convictions in the Magistrate's Court at Kampala for offences under the Uganda Defence (Control of Prices and Distribution) Regulations, 1943
Decision
Convictions and sentences on Count 1 quashed; convictions and sentences on Count 2 upheld against first and third appellants

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 quashed convictions for overcharging on the sale of simsim oil where the prosecution failed to prove by admissible evidence that the price had been fixed by the Controller. The alleged Protectorate Order No. 1 of 1947 was not published in the Official Gazette and was not proved in accordance with Regulation 20, which required a certificate under the hand of the Controller or his officers. Without proof of the Order's existence and contents, no offence was established.

Outcome

Convictions and sentences on Count 1 quashed; convictions and sentences on Count 2 upheld against first and third appellants

Facts

The appellants were convicted in the Magistrate's Court at Kampala on two counts under the Uganda Defence (Control of Prices and Distribution) Regulations, 1943. The first appellant was a limited liability company and the second and third appellants were its officers or servants. On the first count, they were charged with overcharging on the sale of simsim oil contrary to a price allegedly fixed in Protectorate Order No. 1 of 1947. At trial, a police inspector gave hearsay evidence of the prices and a notice of controlled price was tendered, but the Order itself was not proved by admissible evidence and was not published in the Official Gazette. The second count involved a separate offence established by the evidence of a decoy and accompanying policeman.

Issues

  1. Whether the prosecution proved by admissible evidence that the price of simsim oil had been fixed by the Controller under Protectorate Order No. 1 of 1947.
  2. Whether the conviction for overcharging could stand in the absence of proof that the alleged price control order existed and fixed the relevant price.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed on the first count.
  • Convictions and sentences on the first count quashed.
  • Convictions and sentences on the second count upheld against the first and third appellants.

Rules and key headnotes

Evidence — Proof of Subordinate Legislation — Price Control Orders
Where a prosecution for overcharging relies on a price fixed by a Controller under statutory regulations, the existence and contents of the price control order must be proved by admissible evidence in accordance with the applicable evidentiary provisions.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Elements of Offence — Burden of Proof on Prosecution
In a prosecution for overcharging contrary to a price control order, proof that the Controller fixed the relevant price is an essential ingredient of the offence, and the prosecution must establish this element by admissible evidence; the existence of the order cannot be assumed against the accused.
Administrative Law — Price Control — Proof of Administrative Orders
Under Regulation 20 of the Uganda Defence (Control of Prices and Distribution) Regulations, 1943, a price fixed by the Controller may be proved by a certificate in writing under the hand of the Controller, Deputy Controller, or Assistant Controller, which is admissible as prima facie evidence without further proof.
Evidence — Judicial Notice — Unpublished Administrative Orders
A court cannot take judicial notice of the existence or contents of an administrative order that was not published in the Official Gazette, and hearsay evidence of such an order is inadmissible to prove its terms.

Legislation cited (4)

  • Uganda Defence (Control of Prices and Distribution) Regulations, 1943 Reg. II(1)
  • Uganda Defence (Control of Prices and Distribution) Regulations, 1943 Reg. 20
  • Indian Evidence Act s.57(1)
  • Uganda Evidence Ordinance s.55(1)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Rex v Kampala Oil, Flour and Soap Manufacturing Co., Ltd. and Others (Criminal Appeals Nos. 251, 252 and 253 of 1947) [1947] EACA 50 (1 January 1947)
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.