Rex v Sauroj (Confirmation Case 446-1929.)
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 the word 'means' in section 4 of the Witchcraft Ordinance (No. 23 of 1925) could include spoken words. The conviction was quashed due to misjoinder of charges and a retrial was ordered.
Outcome
Conviction quashed and matter remitted for retrial
Facts
The accused was charged under the Witchcraft Ordinance. The case came before the Court of Appeal for Eastern Africa on confirmation. There was an admitted misjoinder of charges in the lower court proceedings. The case was sent for revision by Sheridan J, who raised the question of whether the word 'means' in section 4 of the Witchcraft Ordinance could apply to spoken words.
Issues
- Whether the word 'means' in section 4 of the Witchcraft Ordinance could include spoken words
Orders
- Conviction quashed due to misjoinder of charges.
- Retrial ordered.
- The word 'means' in section 4 of Ordinance 23 of 1925 can include spoken words.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (1)
- Witchcraft Ordinance (No. 23 of 1925) s.4
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.