Wakilii

Rex v Nono (Cr. App. No. 95-1936)

East African Court of Appeal · [1936] EACA 138 · 1936 Appeal Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal appeal from conviction and sentence by Resident Magistrate for leaving reserve without licence after repatriation
Decision
Repatriation order quashed; conviction entered in proper form; sentence of imprisonment confirmed

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

Held that where a person is charged only with leaving his reserve without a licence after repatriation under section 11(3) of the Vagrancy Ordinance, there is no power to make an order returning him to his reserve unless there is an added charge and finding of vagrancy under section 11(1). The court must comply with section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code in all cases by recording a formal judgment and conviction.

Outcome

Repatriation order quashed; conviction entered in proper form; sentence of imprisonment confirmed

Facts

The appellant had been previously convicted of vagrancy and ordered to be returned to his reserve under section 11(1) of the Vagrancy Ordinance. He was subsequently arrested in Nairobi on 22nd September and charged under section 11(3) with leaving his reserve without a licence after having been repatriated. He pleaded guilty. The Resident Magistrate did not record a formal conviction or make a finding of vagrancy, but after evidence of the previous conviction was given, sentenced the appellant to four months imprisonment with hard labour and ordered him to be returned to his reserve. The appellant appealed against the sentence and repatriation order.

Issues

  1. Whether an order returning a native to his reserve can be made under section 11(3) of the Vagrancy Ordinance where the charge is only for leaving the reserve without a licence after repatriation, without an additional charge and finding of vagrancy under section 11(1).
  2. Whether the omission of a formal judgment and conviction as required by sections 164 and 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code renders the proceedings defective.

Orders

  • Repatriation order quashed.
  • Record amended under section 367 to repair the omission of formal judgment by entering a conviction in proper form.
  • Sentence of four months imprisonment with hard labour confirmed.

Rules and key headnotes

Vagrancy — Repatriation Orders — Statutory Requirements
Where a person is charged only with leaving his reserve without a licence after repatriation under section 11(3) of the Vagrancy Ordinance, there is no power to make an order returning him to his reserve unless there is an added charge and finding of vagrancy under section 11(1).
Criminal Procedure — Formal Judgment and Conviction — Mandatory Requirements
In all criminal cases, section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code must be complied with by recording a formal judgment and conviction, and the omission of such formalities cannot be justified even where the accused has pleaded guilty.
Criminal Procedure — Defective Proceedings — Power to Amend Record
Where a formal judgment has been omitted from the record, the appellate court may under section 367 of the Criminal Procedure Code order the omission to be repaired by amending the record and entering a conviction in proper form.

Legislation cited (6)

  • Vagrancy Ordinance Cap. 63 s.11(1)
  • Vagrancy Ordinance Cap. 63 s.11(3)
  • Vagrancy Ordinance Cap. 63 s.3
  • Criminal Procedure Code s.164
  • Criminal Procedure Code s.195
  • Criminal Procedure Code s.367

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Rex v Nono (Cr. App. No. 95-1936) [1936] EACA 138 (1 January 1936)
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.