Wakilii

Rex v Kavango (Cr. R. 80-1931.)

East African Court of Appeal · [1931] EACA 33 · 1931 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal revision from conviction in Second Class Magistrate's Court at Kiambu
Decision
Conviction and sentence confirmed

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 held that under section 20 of the Diseases of Animals Ordinance, a police officer is empowered to seize cattle which have strayed from a farm to a native reserve where he has reason to suspect an offence has been committed. The Court further held that arguing with a police officer and raising obstacles to prevent him from performing his lawful duty, rather than conforming to his instructions, constitutes constructive obstruction under section 18 of the Ordinance. The conviction was confirmed.

Outcome

Conviction and sentence confirmed

Facts

Six head of cattle belonging to Mr. Grist had either strayed or been moved from his farm onto a Native Reserve. A European Police Officer, Griffiths, visited natives in the Reserve and instructed them to hand over the cattle. The natives, led by the appellant Kikoni Kavango, demanded a receipt. When Griffiths offered to provide a receipt upon receiving the cattle, the natives refused to surrender them, alleging they would be cheated. The cattle were then driven further into the Reserve. The appellant was convicted in the Magistrate's Court of obstructing a police officer in the execution of his duty under section 18 of the Diseases of Animals Ordinance. He applied for revision on grounds that the conviction was bad in law and that the evidence did not disclose the offence charged.

Issues

  1. Whether a police officer had power under section 20 of the Diseases of Animals Ordinance to seize cattle which had strayed from a farm to a native reserve.
  2. Whether arguing with a police officer instead of conforming to his instructions constitutes obstruction under section 18 of the Diseases of Animals Ordinance.

Orders

  • Conviction confirmed.
  • Sentence confirmed.

Rules and key headnotes

Obstruction of Police Officer — Constructive Obstruction — Arguing with Officer
Arguing with a police officer and raising obstacles to prevent him from performing a duty he is lawfully empowered to perform, instead of conforming to his instructions, constitutes constructive obstruction of a police officer in the execution of his duty.
Diseases of Animals Ordinance — Police Powers — Seizure of Strayed Cattle
Under section 20 of the Diseases of Animals Ordinance, a police officer is empowered to seize any animal in respect of which he has reason to suspect that an offence against the Ordinance is being committed, including cattle which have strayed from a farm to a native reserve in contravention of the Rules made under the Ordinance.
Diseases of Animals Ordinance — Movement of Cattle — Straying Deemed Movement by Owner
Under Rule 14 of the Rules made under the Diseases of Animals Ordinance, cattle found strayed shall be deemed to have been moved by the owner and by the person actually in charge of such cattle, and movement of cattle from a farm into a Native Reserve without a permit is prohibited.

Legislation cited (5)

  • Diseases of Animals Ordinance Cap. 157 s.18
  • Diseases of Animals Ordinance Cap. 157 s.20
  • Diseases of Animals Ordinance Cap. 157 s.7(5)
  • Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance Cap. 1 s.7
  • Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance Cap. 1 s.9

Cases cited (2)

  • Despard v Wilcox (74 JP 115)
  • Pankhurst v Jarvis (74 JP 64)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Rex v Kavango (Cr. R. 80-1931.) [1931] EACA 33 (1 January 1931)
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.