Wakilii

Rex v Kimanjo (Con. C. 48-1932.)

East African Court of Appeal · [1932] EACA 17 · 1932 Conviction Quashed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal confirmation proceeding following quashing of conviction by Supreme Court and subsequent re-trial
Decision
Accused acquitted and discharged

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 the Supreme Court, exercising its powers in confirmation, quashes a conviction and sentence and does not order a re-trial, the accused cannot again be placed on trial on the same facts for the same offence. The order operates as an acquittal and the principle that no person shall be twice in jeopardy for the same offence applies.

Outcome

Accused acquitted and discharged

Facts

The accused was tried and convicted of theft of stock under section 25 of the Penal Code. He had previously been tried with two others for the same offence on the same facts in Criminal Case No. 1837 of 1931 before the same magistrate. On confirmation in the first trial, the Supreme Court Judge quashed the conviction and sentence against this accused, apparently because a confession made before a baraza was inadmissible as it may have been made because the accused believed something was to be gained. No order for re-trial was made. The magistrate subsequently re-tried the accused and convicted him again, holding that the Judge's order could not support a plea of autrefois acquit. The matter came before the Chief Justice on confirmation of the second conviction.

Issues

  1. Whether an order by the Supreme Court quashing a conviction and sentence in confirmation proceedings, without ordering a re-trial, operates as an acquittal barring further prosecution on the same facts for the same offence.
  2. Whether the principle of autrefois acquit applies where the Supreme Court has quashed a conviction and sentence in the exercise of its confirmation powers.

Orders

  • Conviction and sentence reversed.
  • Accused acquitted.

Rules and key headnotes

Autrefois Acquit — Effect of Supreme Court Order Quashing Conviction in Confirmation
Where the Supreme Court, in the exercise of its powers in confirmation, quashes a conviction and sentence and does not order a re-trial, the accused person cannot again be placed on trial on the same facts for the same offence.
Double Jeopardy — Principle Underlying Autrefois Acquit and Autrefois Convict
The principle underlying the special pleas of autrefois convict and autrefois acquit is that no person shall be twice in peril for the same offence.
Confirmation Powers — Supreme Court Order as Acquittal
An order by the Supreme Court quashing a conviction and sentence in confirmation proceedings, without an express order for re-trial, operates as an acquittal and bars further proceedings on the same charge with the same evidence.

Legislation cited (4)

  • Criminal Procedure Code s.138
  • Criminal Procedure Code s.11
  • Criminal Procedure Code s.349
  • Penal Code s.25

Cases cited (3)

  • Rex v Kitching (21 CAR 144)
  • Rex v Drury and Others (118 LJ MC 189)
  • The King v Barron [1914] 2 KB 570

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Rex v Kimanjo (Con. C. 48-1932.) [1932] EACA 17 (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.