Rex v Mohamedali (Criminal Appeal No. 100 of 1945)
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 of Appeal held that 'wilfully' in s.332(1) of the Kenya Penal Code means deliberately and intentionally, not by accident or inadvertence. Where an accused achieves a result he did not intend but does so in circumstances showing recklessness as to that result, he acts wilfully. The appeal against conviction for wilfully and unlawfully damaging a motor car was dismissed.
Outcome
Conviction upheld
Facts
The appellant was convicted of wilfully and unlawfully damaging a motor car contrary to s.332(1) of the Kenya Penal Code. The appellant struck at a person who was in a motor car and in so doing damaged the car. The appellant appealed his conviction on the ground that he did not act wilfully because he did not intend to damage the car.
Issues
- Whether the appellant acted 'wilfully' within the meaning of s.332(1) of the Kenya Penal Code when he struck at a person in a motor car and in so doing damaged the car.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (3)
- Kenya Penal Code s.332(1)
- Malicious Damage Act 1861 s.51
- Malicious Damage Act 1861 s.52
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.