Wakilii

Rex v Murray (Criminal Appeal No. 11 of 1945)

East African Court of Appeal · [1945] EACA 57 · 1945 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal appeal against conviction for malicious damage, challenging wrongful admission of evidence from preliminary inquiry
Decision
Conviction and fine upheld; costs and compensation orders set aside

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 appeal against conviction but set aside orders for costs and compensation. Held that no failure of justice occurred from wrongfully admitting evidence from a preliminary inquiry when the admissible evidence alone would have resulted in a guilty verdict. The defence of claim of right to a malicious damage charge fails unless the accused acted in bona fide exercise of a supposed right and did no more damage than reasonably necessary. Costs orders against an accused person in favour of the Public Prosecutor should only be made in exceptional circumstances.

Outcome

Conviction and fine upheld; costs and compensation orders set aside

Facts

The appellant, a farm owner, went to huts occupied by Ngoshi on his land to order him off. Finding the huts open and unoccupied, he had one hut cleared and ordered it to be fired, resulting in other huts catching fire. The appellant claimed Ngoshi was a trespasser or illegal resident under the Resident Labourers Ordinance and that the huts were built from his materials. Evidence showed Ngoshi had lived on the farm for six years with the appellant's initial permission, had three wives and children, some of whom worked for the appellant. The appellant admitted he could not prove Ngoshi received notice to quit. After initial proceedings were terminated by nolle prosequi, new proceedings were brought before a different magistrate who wrongfully incorporated evidence from the preliminary inquiry into the trial record.

Issues

  1. Whether the wrongful admission of inadmissible evidence from a preliminary inquiry occasioned a failure of justice under Criminal Procedure Code s.381.
  2. Whether the defence of claim of right applied where the accused burned huts on his land claiming the occupant was a trespasser.
  3. Whether costs should be awarded to the Public Prosecutor.

Orders

  • Appeal against conviction dismissed.
  • Fine imposed upheld.
  • Order for costs set aside.
  • Order for compensation set aside, leaving it open to persons who suffered loss to take civil action.

Rules and key headnotes

Evidence — Wrongful Admission of Inadmissible Evidence — Failure of Justice Test
There is no failure of justice within the meaning of section 381 of the Criminal Procedure Code by the wrongful admission of inadmissible evidence when it is quite clear that on the admissible evidence alone, only a verdict of guilty would have resulted.
Criminal Law — Malicious Damage — Defence of Claim of Right
Where the defence to a charge of malicious damage is that the acts complained of were done in the exercise of a claim of right, it will fail unless the accused can show that he acted in a bona fide exercise of a supposed right and did no more damage than he could reasonably have supposed to be necessary for its assertion.
Criminal Procedure — Costs — Orders Against Accused in Favour of Public Prosecutor
It is only in exceptional circumstances that an accused person is ordered to pay costs to the Public Prosecutor.
Evidence — Admissibility — Evidence from Terminated Proceedings
Where an accused has been discharged following entry of a nolle prosequi, those proceedings are completely terminated and evidence taken in them is not admissible in new proceedings on a fresh charge, even if the charge relates to the same subject matter.

Legislation cited (6)

  • Criminal Procedure Code s.381
  • Kenya Penal Code s.332(1)
  • Kenya Penal Code s.325
  • Criminal Procedure Code s.249
  • Resident Labourers Ordinance 1937 s.4
  • Criminal Appeal Act 1907 s.4(1)

Cases cited (2)

  • Rex v Haddy (1944) 1 KB 442
  • Rex v Clemens (1898) 1 QB 556

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Rex v Murray (Criminal Appeal No. 11 of 1945) [1945] EACA 57 (1 January 1945)
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.