Rex v Mairongo (Criminal Appeal No. 244 of 1948)
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
When an accused person pleads not guilty to a charge, section 209(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code cannot be brought into operation until the close of the evidence in support of the charge. The section only applies if it appears to the court that a case has been made out against the accused sufficiently to require him to make a defence. A magistrate erred in invoking section 209 after only the complainant's evidence and before closing the prosecution case.
Outcome
Conviction upheld
Facts
The appellant was charged with theft and pleaded not guilty. After the complainant gave evidence but before any other prosecution evidence was called, the appellant indicated he wished to make a statement. The magistrate explained section 209 of the Criminal Procedure Code to him. The appellant then made an unsworn statement amounting to an unequivocal plea of guilty, whereupon the magistrate convicted him. The appellant appealed, but his memorandum of appeal was regarded as frivolous given his admission of guilt.
Issues
- Whether section 209(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code can be invoked before the close of the prosecution's evidence when an accused person has pleaded not guilty.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (1)
- Criminal Procedure Code s.209(1)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.