Wakilii

Rex v Seguja (Criminal Appeal 44-1935.)

East African Court of Appeal · [1935] EACA 85 · 1935 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal appeal from conviction for manslaughter by negligence
Decision
Conviction and sentence upheld

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 evidence showed the appellant drove with criminal disregard for the life and safety of others, supporting the manslaughter conviction. Section 280 of the Criminal Procedure Code is an enabling provision that permits a court to consider information from a responsible officer for sentencing purposes without requiring it to be on oath, unless the accused challenges its accuracy.

Outcome

Conviction and sentence upheld

Facts

The appellant was convicted of manslaughter by negligence while driving a motor-bus. The evidence showed that while passing a stationary car, owing to excessive speed and wet road conditions, his bus ran onto the track at the side of the road and struck a cyclist, causing death. Before sentencing, Crown Counsel informed the judge that during 1934 there had been a large number of motor accidents in the district, causing 13 deaths and injury to 160 persons. The appellant was sentenced to three years' imprisonment with hard labour and disqualified from obtaining a driving licence for five years from the date of his release.

Issues

  1. Whether the evidence supported a conviction for manslaughter by criminal negligence.
  2. Whether section 280 of the Criminal Procedure Code permits a court to consider information about the prevalence of offences provided by Crown Counsel without that information being given on oath.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.

Rules and key headnotes

Manslaughter — Criminal Negligence — Standard of Proof
To establish manslaughter by negligence, the prosecution must prove that the accused drove in such a manner as to show a criminal disregard for the life and safety of others.
Sentencing — Information on Prevalence of Offences — Criminal Procedure Code s.280
Section 280 of the Criminal Procedure Code is an enabling provision that permits a court to receive information from a responsible officer about the prevalence of offences for sentencing purposes without requiring that information to be given on oath, provided the accused does not challenge its accuracy.
Sentencing — Challenge to Information — Requirement for Sworn Evidence
Where the accuracy of information provided to the court for sentencing purposes is challenged by the accused, it becomes necessary to adduce that information on oath, but not otherwise.

Legislation cited (1)

  • Criminal Procedure Code s.280

Cases cited (1)

  • R v Bateman (19 Cr App R 8)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Rex v Seguja (Criminal Appeal 44-1935.) [1935] EACA 85 (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.