Wakilii

Rex v Ramji (Criminal Appeal No. 185 of 1941)

East African Court of Appeal · [1942] EACA 65 · 1942 Appeal Partly Allowed — Sentence Reduced AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal appeal from conviction for selling price-regulated goods above maximum fixed price
Decision
Conviction upheld; sentence reduced to fine of Sh. 1,000 or three months simple imprisonment in default

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 accused's advocate cannot bind the accused by any admission prejudicial or adverse to him. However, orders made by a District Commissioner under the Defence (Price of Goods) Regulations, 1940 fixing maximum prices are part of the law of the land and courts will take judicial notice of such orders under section 57(1) of the Indian Evidence Act. The conviction was upheld but the sentence was reduced from a fine of £150 to Sh. 1,000 as the original sentence was excessive.

Outcome

Conviction upheld; sentence reduced to fine of Sh. 1,000 or three months simple imprisonment in default

Facts

The appellant was convicted of selling two bags of sugar weighing 224 lb. for Sh. 74 on 17 September 1941, when the maximum middleman's price was Sh. 35 per bag, contrary to Regulation 4(1) of the Defence (Price of Goods) Regulations, 1940. He was sentenced to a fine of £150 or six months simple imprisonment in default. Before the accused pleaded, his advocate agreed that the fixed price for sugar of this class was Sh. 35 per bag. No admissible evidence was called to prove the maximum regulated price, though the District Commissioner's order fixing the maximum price was in court and was consulted by the magistrate.

Issues

  1. Whether the maximum regulated price fixed under the Defence (Price of Goods) Regulations, 1940 had to be proved by admissible evidence.
  2. Whether an accused's advocate can bind the accused by an admission prejudicial or adverse to him.
  3. Whether a court will take judicial notice of orders made under the Defence Regulations fixing maximum prices.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed as to conviction.
  • Sentence reduced from a fine of £150 (or six months simple imprisonment in default) to a fine of Sh. 1,000 (or three months simple imprisonment in default).

Rules and key headnotes

Criminal Law & Procedure — Defence Counsel — Admissions — Effect of Advocate's Admission on Accused
An accused's advocate cannot bind the accused by any admission prejudicial or adverse to him.
Evidence — Judicial Notice — Orders Under Defence Regulations — Maximum Prices
An order of a District Commissioner under Regulation 6(1) of the Defence (Price of Goods) Regulations, 1940, fixing the maximum price of goods is part of the law of the land and a court will take judicial notice of such order under section 57(1) of the Indian Evidence Act.
Statutory Interpretation — Defence Regulations — Orders — Force of Law Without Gazette Publication
Orders made under the Defence Regulations, 1939, have the force of law and do not depend on publication in the Official Gazette for their validity or enforceability.

Legislation cited (7)

  • Defence (Price of Goods) Regulations, 1940 Regulation 4(1)
  • Defence (Price of Goods) Regulations, 1940 Regulation 6(1)
  • Defence (Price of Goods) Regulations, 1940 Regulation 1
  • Defence Regulations, 1939 Regulation 2(4)
  • Defence Regulations, 1939 Regulation 99(1)
  • Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance s.9
  • Indian Evidence Act s.57(1)

Cases cited (1)

  • Abdulla Kanji v Rex (19 K.L.R. 29)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Rex v Ramji (Criminal Appeal No. 185 of 1941) [1942] EACA 65 (1 January 1942)
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.