Wakilii

Rex v Lohinda (Con. C. 789-1932.)

East African Court of Appeal · [1932] EACA 11 · 1932 Conviction Quashed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal confirmation from Resident Magistrate's Court, Mombasa
Decision
Conviction and sentence set aside

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

Conviction under Penal Code s.167(4) set aside. The court held that visible means of subsistence and failure to give a good account of oneself are two totally different elements. While evidence supported findings that the accused was a reputed thief and failed to give a good account of himself, there was no evidence on the record that he lacked visible means of subsistence. All three elements must be proved for conviction.

Outcome

Conviction and sentence set aside

Facts

The accused was charged under Penal Code s.167(4) with being a rogue and vagabond. Chief Sub-Inspector Said testified that the accused was a reputed thief. Second Class Constable Okoyo testified that when he challenged the accused, the accused said he was going to work for a Goan but refused to show the Goan's house when asked. The Resident Magistrate convicted the accused and sentenced him to nine months' hard labour. The case came before the High Court on confirmation.

Issues

  1. Whether the Crown proved all three elements required for conviction under Penal Code s.167(4), namely that the accused was a suspected person or reputed thief, had no visible means of subsistence, and could not give a good account of himself.

Orders

  • Conviction set aside.
  • Sentence set aside.

Rules and key headnotes

Criminal Law & Procedure — Rogues and Vagabonds — Elements of Offence under Penal Code s.167(4)
To convict under Penal Code s.167(4), the court must be satisfied by evidence of three distinct elements: (1) that the accused is a suspected person or reputed thief, (2) that he has no visible means of subsistence, and (3) that he cannot give a good account of himself.
Statutory Interpretation — Penal Code s.167(4) — Visible Means of Subsistence Distinguished from Failure to Give Good Account
Visible means of subsistence and failure to give a good account of oneself are two totally different things. A person might have substantial income yet on occasion be unable to give a good account of himself. Evidence of failure to give a good account does not constitute evidence of lack of visible means of subsistence.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Burden of Proof — Requirement for Evidence on Record
Where the Crown fails to adduce evidence on the record to support a finding on an essential element of the offence charged, the Crown has failed to prove its case and the conviction must be set aside.

Legislation cited (4)

  • Penal Code s.167(4)
  • Penal Code s.167(5)
  • Vagrancy Act 1824 s.4
  • Prevention of Crimes Act 1871 s.15

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Rex v Lohinda (Con. C. 789-1932.) [1932] EACA 11 (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.