Wakilii

Rex v Mukasa (Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 1940)

East African Court of Appeal · [1940] EACA 10 · 1940 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Second criminal appeal from conviction by subordinate court, following dismissal of first appeal by High Court of Uganda
Decision
Conviction upheld but altered to reflect correct statutory provision

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 dismissed the second appeal as no point of law was raised and no appeal lies in such circumstances. The Court observed that section 185 of the Criminal Procedure Code, though using the phrase 'gross sum', applies to property other than money, including cattle. The conviction was formally altered from section 266 to section 271(b) of the Penal Code.

Outcome

Conviction upheld but altered to reflect correct statutory provision

Facts

The appellant was convicted by a subordinate court under section 266 of the Penal Code for theft of a large number of cattle between 27 March 1939 and 29 August 1939. The cattle had been entrusted to his care by the owners, and this was averred in the charge. The High Court dismissed the first appeal but considered whether it was permissible to lay a single charge for the total number of cattle stolen between those dates, or whether each particular theft and its date had to be set out separately. This question turned on the interpretation of section 185 of the Criminal Procedure Code and whether it referred only to money.

Issues

  1. Whether the appeal was competent as a second appeal on a point of law.
  2. Whether section 185 of the Criminal Procedure Code permits a single charge for multiple thefts of cattle committed over a period, or requires separate charges for each theft.
  3. Whether the conviction should have been under section 271(b) rather than section 266 of the Penal Code.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Conviction altered from section 266 to section 271(b) of the Penal Code.

Rules and key headnotes

Criminal Procedure — Charging — Theft by servant or agent — Multiple thefts over period
Where a person is charged with theft of property entrusted to their care under section 271 of the Penal Code, section 185 of the Criminal Procedure Code permits specification of the gross amount of property stolen and the dates between which the offence was committed, without specifying particular items or exact dates.
Statutory Interpretation — Meaning of 'gross sum' — Application to non-monetary property
The phrase 'gross sum' in section 185 of the Criminal Procedure Code, though apt to cause misunderstanding, is intended to include cases where the property stolen may not be money, such as cattle or mail bags.
Criminal Law — Theft — Proper charge for theft of property entrusted to care
Where property has been entrusted to the offender for safe custody and the offender steals it, the proper charge is under section 271(b) of the Penal Code (theft by person entrusted with property) rather than section 266 (general theft).

Legislation cited (7)

  • Penal Code s.266
  • Penal Code s.271
  • Penal Code s.271(b)
  • Penal Code s.268
  • Penal Code s.269
  • Penal Code s.270
  • Criminal Procedure Code s.185

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Rex v Mukasa (Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 1940) [1940] EACA 10 (1 January 1940)
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.