Rex v Karama (Criminal Appeal No. 200 of 1951)
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 proved facts disclose more than one offence, all such offences may be charged together or separately, and a prior conviction for one offence does not bar subsequent prosecution for another offence arising from the same facts. Section 21 of the Penal Code bars subsequent prosecution only where the facts disclose a single act or omission. A conviction for affray does not bar subsequent prosecution for assault causing actual bodily harm committed during the affray, as these constitute separate offences based on distinct facts.
Outcome
Conviction for assault causing actual bodily harm upheld
Facts
On 29 March 1951, the appellant and nine others were convicted of affray before the Resident Magistrate, Mombasa, and each fined Sh. 20 after pleading guilty. On 1 May 1951, the appellant was charged with assault causing actual bodily harm for stabbing Salim Salmin during the same affray, causing a wound requiring an operation and eighteen days' hospitalisation. The appellant pleaded autrefois convict, arguing he had already been convicted and punished for the affray. The Magistrate overruled the plea and convicted the appellant. The Supreme Court of Kenya dismissed the appeal, and the appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal for Eastern Africa.
Issues
- Whether a prior conviction for affray bars a subsequent prosecution for assault causing actual bodily harm arising from the same incident under the doctrine of autrefois convict.
- Whether section 21 of the Penal Code bars a second charge where the same act forms the basis of both offences.
- Whether there is a conflict between section 21 of the Penal Code and sections 139 and 140 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (8)
- Criminal Procedure Code s.139
- Criminal Procedure Code s.135
- Criminal Procedure Code s.135(1)
- Criminal Procedure Code s.140
- Penal Code s.21
- Penal Code s.89
- Penal Code s.246
- Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance s.2
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.