Wakilii

Rex v Korie (Cr. App. No. 91 of 1938)

East African Court of Appeal · [1938] EACA 197 · 1938 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal appeal from conviction for cattle theft
Decision
Conviction and sentence upheld

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 to establish a case under section 10 of the Stock and Produce Theft (Levy of Fines) Ordinance, 1933, the prosecution need only prove the accused was in possession at some time of stock in circumstances reasonably leading to belief it was stolen. Possession at arrest or recent possession is not required. The charge should be framed under section 10 alone when circumstances fall within that provision. Framing the charge under both section 10 and section 255 Penal Code in one count may amount to duplicity. Appeal dismissed.

Outcome

Conviction and sentence upheld

Facts

The appellant was convicted of cattle theft. The appeal raised questions about the proper construction of section 10 of the Stock and Produce Theft (Levy of Fines) Ordinance, 1933, specifically whether the prosecution must prove possession at the time of arrest or recent possession to establish a prima facie case. The charge had been framed under both section 10 of the Ordinance and section 255 of the Penal Code. The Court noted that cattle-stealing in the district was an offence of a peculiar nature and that sentences of imprisonment and fine had been passed and confirmed.

Issues

  1. Whether to establish a case under section 10 of the Stock and Produce Theft (Levy of Fines) Ordinance, 1933, the prosecution must prove possession at the time of arrest or recent possession.
  2. Whether a charge should be framed under section 10 of the Ordinance alone or jointly with section 255 of the Penal Code.
  3. Whether framing a charge under both section 10 and section 255 in one count amounts to duplicity.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.

Rules and key headnotes

Stock Theft — Proof of Possession — Section 10 Stock and Produce Theft Ordinance
To establish a case for the accused to answer under section 10 of the Stock and Produce Theft (Levy of Fines) Ordinance, 1933, the prosecution need only prove that the accused was in possession at some time of stock in circumstances which may reasonably lead to the belief that such stock has been stolen. It is not necessary to prove possession at the time of arrest or recent possession.
Burden of Proof — Stock Theft — Reverse Onus
Once the prosecution establishes possession of stock in circumstances reasonably leading to belief of theft under section 10 of the Stock and Produce Theft (Levy of Fines) Ordinance, 1933, the onus is cast upon the accused to prove affirmatively that his possession is or was lawful.
Charges — Framing of Charges — Stock Theft — Duplicity
When circumstances fall within section 10 of the Stock and Produce Theft (Levy of Fines) Ordinance, 1933, the charge should be framed under that section alone and conviction should be had under that section alone. To express the charge under both section 10 of the Ordinance and section 255 of the Penal Code in one count may amount to duplicity.
Charges — Alternative Counts — Stock Theft
The prosecution may frame two counts alternatively, one under section 10 of the Stock and Produce Theft (Levy of Fines) Ordinance, 1933 and the other under section 255 of the Penal Code. In the event of conviction under section 10, there should be an acquittal under section 255 and vice versa.
Stock Theft Legislation — Distinct Statutory Offence
Section 10 of the Stock and Produce Theft (Levy of Fines) Ordinance, 1933 creates a distinct statutory offence of theft which is different in nature from theft under section 255 of the Penal Code by reason of the fact that the onus to account for lawful possession of stock is laid upon the accused.

Legislation cited (3)

  • Stock and Produce Theft (Levy of Fines) Ordinance, 1933 s.10
  • Penal Code s.255
  • Stock and Produce Theft Ordinance, 1928 s.4

Cases cited (1)

  • Rex v Kipkoech A Sururei (14 KLR 174)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Rex v Korie (Cr. App. No. 91 of 1938) [1938] EACA 197 (1 January 1938)
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.