Wakilii

Rex v Nunes (Cr. App. No. 16-35.)

East African Court of Appeal · [1935] EACA 139 · 1935 Appeal Allowed — Convictions Quashed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal appeal from conviction for perjury by resident magistrate
Decision
Appellant's convictions quashed and appeal allowed

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 a private prosecutor has no right to appear on appeal to the Supreme Court under section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which provides only for the appellant and the Attorney General to be heard. Permission to prosecute may be implied from the magistrate allowing the trial to proceed. Perjury charges must set out the alleged false statement with exactitude in all material particulars, and the falsity must be proved by more than a single witness. Reference to the judgment in the underlying case was irregular. Both convictions were quashed for lack of particularity in the charges and insufficient proof.

Outcome

Appellant's convictions quashed and appeal allowed

Facts

The appellant was convicted on two charges of perjury alleged to have been committed during his testimony in Criminal Case No. 159/1934 (Rex v Daroga and others). The prosecution was conducted by one of the accused in that case as a private prosecutor. The first charge alleged the appellant falsely testified about going to the Sports Garage with the second accused and about statements the second accused allegedly made. The second charge alleged he falsely testified that a person named Mangat was present at a house in the last week of August. The private prosecutor had not formally requested or received express permission to prosecute. During the trial, the prosecutor invited the magistrate to refer to a passage in the Chief Justice's judgment in the underlying criminal case.

Issues

  1. Whether a private prosecutor is entitled to appear on a criminal appeal to the Supreme Court.
  2. Whether permission to a private person to conduct a prosecution may be implied where not formally requested or granted.
  3. Whether the charges of perjury were sufficiently particular and definite.
  4. Whether it was irregular for the magistrate to be referred to the judgment in the case in which the perjury was alleged to have been committed.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • Convictions on both charges of perjury quashed.

Rules and key headnotes

Criminal Procedure — Appeals — Right of Private Prosecutor to Appear
A private prosecutor is not entitled to appear on an appeal to the Supreme Court, as section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides only for the hearing of the appellant or his advocate and the Attorney General.
Criminal Procedure — Private Prosecutions — Permission to Prosecute
Permission to a private person to conduct a prosecution may be implied from the magistrate allowing the trial to proceed, even though permission was not formally requested or granted, where the magistrate must have been aware that the case was instituted by a private prosecutor who could not conduct it without permission.
Perjury — Particularity of Charge — Requirement to Set Out False Statement
A charge of perjury must set out the alleged false statement with exactitude in all material particulars, specifying precisely what was said, when, where, and by whom, so that the accused knows the case to be met without reference to the record of the underlying proceedings.
Evidence — Perjury — Proof of Falsity — Corroboration Requirement
The falsity of a statement charged as perjury is not sufficiently proved by the evidence of a single witness and requires corroboration.
Perjury — Materiality — Requirement that False Statement be Material
A statement, even if false, does not constitute perjury unless it was material to the charges in the underlying trial, such that no inference relevant to those charges could be drawn from the statement.
Criminal Procedure — Trial — Irregularity in Referring to Another Judgment
It is irregular for a prosecutor to invite the trial magistrate to refer to observations made by another judge in the judgment of the underlying case, as the magistrate must decide guilt on the evidence before him and cannot have regard to observations in another case which may prejudice the accused.

Legislation cited (5)

  • Criminal Procedure Code s.340
  • Criminal Procedure Code s.86
  • Criminal Procedure Code s.84
  • Criminal Procedure Code s.83
  • Indian Penal Code s.193

Cases cited (3)

  • R v Brittain (17 Cox CC 627)
  • Criminal Appeal No. 11/1935
  • Rex v Daroga and Others (Criminal Case No. 159 of 1934)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Rex v Nunes (Cr. App. No. 16-35.) [1935] EACA 139 (1 January 1935)
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.