Wakilii

Rex v Rawebhai (Cr. App. 26-1931.)

East African Court of Appeal · [1931] EACA 23 · 1931 Conviction Quashed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal appeal from conviction by Resident Magistrate, Nairobi
Decision
Appellant discharged

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 the charge should have been brought under section 98 of the Penal Code, which governs perjury in judicial proceedings, rather than section 101, which applies to false swearing in non-judicial matters. Section 99 required corroboration by more than one witness for perjury charges. The Crown was not entitled to call additional evidence after closing its case and after the accused had entered his defence. The appellant should have been discharged under section 196a of the Criminal Procedure Code when no case to answer was established.

Outcome

Appellant discharged

Facts

The appellant filed a petition in bankruptcy on which a receiving order was made on 27 June 1930. On 5 September 1930, he applied to rescind the receiving order, supporting his application with an affidavit stating he had settled with all his creditors in full satisfaction of their debts. The affidavit was used in the Supreme Court application. Evidence showed that one creditor, Messrs. Gailey and Roberts, had not agreed to any composition or settlement and had emphatically refused such composition. The appellant was charged under section 101 of the Penal Code with false swearing. After the Crown closed its case, the Magistrate upheld a submission of no case to answer under section 99. The Crown then sought and was granted leave to call an additional witness, Mr. Malcomson, who testified that no composition had been agreed. The Magistrate convicted the appellant under section 101 read with section 34 and sentenced him to one year imprisonment with hard labour.

Issues

  1. Whether the Magistrate erred in holding that section 99 of the Penal Code had no application to section 101 thereof.
  2. Whether the Crown was entitled to call further evidence after closing its case and after the accused had entered on his defence.
  3. Whether the charge should have been brought under section 98 rather than section 101 of the Penal Code.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • Conviction and sentence reversed.
  • Appellant ordered to be discharged.

Rules and key headnotes

Perjury — Distinction between sections 98 and 101 of the Penal Code — Judicial proceedings versus other matters
Sections 97 and 98 of the Penal Code are devised to deal with perjury committed in judicial proceedings, while section 101 is devised for other matters such as declarations and affirmations required by statute.
Corroboration — Section 99 Penal Code — Requirement of more than one witness for perjury charges
Where a charge of perjury is brought under section 98 of the Penal Code, section 99 requires that the charge be supported by more than one witness.
Criminal Procedure — Calling further evidence after case closed — No authority to reopen prosecution case after accused enters defence
No authority enables the Crown to call further evidence in support of its case after the prosecution has closed its case and the accused has in fact entered on his defence.
Discharge of accused — Section 196a Criminal Procedure Code — No case to answer
Where the prosecution closes its case and no case to answer is established, the accused should be discharged in accordance with section 196a of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Legislation cited (8)

  • Penal Code s.98
  • Penal Code s.101
  • Penal Code s.97
  • Penal Code s.99
  • Penal Code s.34
  • Criminal Procedure Code s.196a
  • Criminal Procedure Code s.80
  • Criminal Procedure Code s.85

Cases cited (2)

  • Rex v. Hailey, Ry. & Moody, p. 94
  • Regina v. Parker, Cr. & M.; p. 639

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Rex v Rawebhai (Cr. App. 26-1931.) [1931] EACA 23 (1 January 1931)
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.