Wakilii

Rex v Mohammed (Cr. Rev. Case No. 29-1937)

East African Court of Appeal · [1937] EACA 193 · 1937 Conviction Quashed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal revision application challenging conviction under Native Produce Improvement and Inspection Rules, 1936
Decision
Applicant's conviction set aside; fine to be refunded if paid

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

Rule 12 of the Native Produce Improvement and Inspection Rules, 1936, is ultra vires. The enabling Ordinance required the Governor in Council to name the area to which rules apply, but Rule 12 improperly delegated this power to the Director of Agriculture. Section 13 of the Interpretation Ordinance denies the Governor power to delegate rule-making authority, and this prohibition applies with greater force where rules are made by the Governor in Council.

Outcome

Applicant's conviction set aside; fine to be refunded if paid

Facts

The applicant was convicted under Rule 12(3) of the Native Produce Improvement and Inspection Rules, 1936, for purchasing maize on 24 April 1937 at Runyenje's which had not been inspected. Rule 12(1) empowered the Director of Agriculture to specify by gazette notice areas from which produce could not be removed except after inspection. Rule 12(3) prohibited the sale or purchase of produce within three miles of an inspection place until inspected. The applicant challenged the validity of the rule under which he was convicted.

Issues

  1. Whether Rule 12 of the Native Produce Improvement and Inspection Rules, 1936, is ultra vires the Crop Production and Live Stock Ordinance, 1926.

Orders

  • Conviction quashed.
  • Fine, if paid, to be refunded to the applicant.

Rules and key headnotes

Administrative Law — Delegated Legislation — Ultra Vires Rules — Unlawful Delegation of Rule-Making Power
Where an enabling statute requires the Governor in Council to name the area to which rules apply, a rule that delegates this power to specify areas to a subordinate official is ultra vires the enabling statute.
Statutory Interpretation — Delegation of Powers — Limits on Delegation of Rule-Making Authority
Section 13 of the Interpretation Ordinance, while giving the Governor certain power to delegate authority, expressly denies the right to delegate rule-making power, and this prohibition applies with greater force where rules are to be made by the Governor in Council.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Conviction — Quashing — Conviction Under Ultra Vires Rule
A conviction under a rule that is ultra vires the enabling statute must be quashed and any fine paid must be refunded to the accused.

Legislation cited (6)

  • Crop Production and Live Stock Ordinance, 1926 s.4
  • Crop Production and Live Stock Ordinance, 1926 s.5
  • Native Produce Improvement and Inspection Rules, 1936 r.12
  • Native Produce Improvement and Inspection Rules, 1936 r.11
  • Native Produce Improvement and Inspection Rules, 1936 r.4
  • Interpretation Ordinance Cap. 1 s.13

Cases cited (1)

  • Cr. App. (Tanganyika) No. 21 / 1936

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Rex v Mohammed (Cr. Rev. Case No. 29-1937) [1937] EACA 193 (1 January 1937)
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.