Rex v Misick (Confirmation Case No. 655 of 1941)
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 an officer in charge of a police station has reasonable grounds to suspect a person of a cognizable offence and wishes to depute subordinate officers to arrest that person in his absence, he must comply with section 29 of the Criminal Procedure Code and deliver a written order. Subordinate officers acting on verbal instructions alone are not acting in the due execution of their duty. Conviction for resisting arrest set aside.
Outcome
Accused released
Facts
The officer in charge of Kericho Police Station received information and proceeded to Chemagel with eight armed constables. At Chemagel he met Chief Arap Tile, placed the constables in the chief's charge, and issued verbal instructions to arrest three Kipsigis including the accused on suspicion of murder. The accused resisted arrest by the subordinate constables. He was convicted of resisting police officers in the due execution of their duty contrary to section 231(b) of the Penal Code. The case came before the Court of Appeal for confirmation.
Issues
- Whether subordinate police officers were acting in the due execution of their duty when arresting the accused on verbal instructions from an officer in charge of a police station, without a written order as required by section 29 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Orders
- Conviction and sentence set aside.
- Accused ordered released on this charge.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (4)
- Criminal Procedure Code s.27
- Criminal Procedure Code s.28
- Criminal Procedure Code s.29
- Penal Code s.231(b)
Cases cited (1)
- Queen Empress v Basant Lall (1900) 27 Calcutta 320
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.