Wakilii

Rex v Nathu (Criminal Appeal No. 153 of 1948)

East African Court of Appeal · [1948] EACA 34 · 1948 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal against interlocutory order made by High Court Judge during hearing of criminal appeal
Decision
Appeal struck out for lack of jurisdiction

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 held that an interlocutory order made by a High Court Judge during a criminal appeal directing a magistrate to take further evidence is not appealable to the Court of Appeal for Eastern Africa. Under section 320 of the Uganda Criminal Procedure Code, a person aggrieved by a decision of the High Court in its appellate jurisdiction may appeal only where there is a conviction and sentence, or an order for which the Criminal Procedure Code expressly bestows a right of appeal. The word decision in section 320 means the final judgment or order, not interlocutory orders.

Outcome

Appeal struck out for lack of jurisdiction

Facts

The appellant was convicted of an offence under the Uganda Mining Ordinance in a subordinate court. He appealed to the High Court of Uganda. During the hearing of that appeal, Mr. Justice Pearson ordered the magistrate to take further evidence. The appellant then sought to appeal against that interlocutory order to the Court of Appeal for Eastern Africa. The appellant did not appear before the Court of Appeal and was unrepresented, but submitted a written memorandum in support of the appeal.

Issues

  1. Whether an order made by a High Court Judge during the hearing of a criminal appeal directing a magistrate to take further evidence is appealable to the Court of Appeal for Eastern Africa.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed as not entertainable.

Rules and key headnotes

Criminal Procedure — Appeals — Appealable Orders — Interlocutory Orders
Under the Uganda Criminal Procedure Code, before a person aggrieved by a decision of the High Court in its appellate jurisdiction may appeal to the Court of Appeal for Eastern Africa, there must be a conviction and sentence upon which to found an appeal, unless it be an order of a kind concerning which the Criminal Procedure Code bestows a right of appeal.
Criminal Procedure — Interpretation of Statutes — Meaning of 'Decision'
The word decision in section 320 of the Uganda Criminal Procedure Code means the final judgment or order made by the High Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction under section 314, not an interlocutory order made during the hearing of an appeal.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Interlocutory Orders — Rule 22 of East African Court of Appeal Rules
Rule 22 of the East African Court of Appeal Rules 1925, which envisages appeals against interlocutory orders, has reference only to civil appeals and can only refer to orders of a kind concerning which a right of appeal lies by statute.

Legislation cited (5)

  • Uganda Criminal Procedure Code s.314
  • Uganda Criminal Procedure Code s.315
  • Uganda Criminal Procedure Code s.320
  • East African Court of Appeal Rules 1925 r.22
  • Uganda Civil Procedure Ordinance s.75

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Rex v Nathu (Criminal Appeal No. 153 of 1948) [1948] EACA 34 (1 January 1948)
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.