Wakilii

Rex v Selwyn and Others (Criminal Case No. 110 of 1934.)

East African Court of Appeal · [1934] EACA 13 · 1934 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application by the Crown for change of venue from Kitale to Nairobi prior to trial of accused committed on murder charge
Decision
Application dismissed; trial to proceed in accordance with Attorney-General's filing decision

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 Crown's application for change of venue from Kitale to Nairobi was refused. The Court held that the application was unnecessary because the Supreme Court has full jurisdiction over the entire Colony and Protectorate of Kenya, and once a case is committed by a subordinate court, the Chief Justice can order a sitting at any place and time. It is within the Attorney-General's discretion to decide at which sessions to file the information, and any objection to venue should come from the accused, not the Crown.

Outcome

Application dismissed; trial to proceed in accordance with Attorney-General's filing decision

Facts

The Crown applied for a change of venue seeking to move the trial of Helen Selwyn and five others, committed by the magistrate at Kitale on a murder charge, from Kitale or Eldoret to Nairobi. The application was supported by affidavits intended to show likelihood of bias in favour of the accused on the part of a European jury at Kitale or Eldoret. The accused were Europeans charged with murder. The Crown sought the change of venue prior to trial.

Issues

  1. Whether the Crown can competently apply for a change of venue prior to trial on the ground of unlikelihood of a fair and impartial trial in the district where the alleged offence took place.
  2. Whether such an application by the Crown is necessary given the Supreme Court's jurisdiction over the Colony and Protectorate of Kenya.

Orders

  • Application for change of venue refused.

Rules and key headnotes

Criminal Law & Procedure — Jurisdiction — Territorial Jurisdiction of Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has full jurisdiction over the whole of the Colony and Protectorate of Kenya and has no local jurisdiction limitations within those boundaries.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Venue — Power of Chief Justice to Fix Place and Date of Sitting
Once a case is committed by a subordinate court acting within its local jurisdiction, the Chief Justice can order a sitting at such place and on such day as he sees fit under section 68 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Venue — Discretion of Attorney-General to Select Sessions for Filing Information
It is within the discretion of the Attorney-General to decide at which sessions of the Supreme Court he will file his information under sections 241 and 242 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Venue — Procedure for Objecting to Place of Trial
Where the accused objects to the place selected by the Attorney-General for filing the information under section 238, it is for the accused to apply to the Court to fix some other place, or the Court on its own motion may fix some other place; the Crown need not apply for change of venue.

Legislation cited (6)

  • Criminal Procedure Code s.4
  • Criminal Procedure Code s.6
  • Criminal Procedure Code s.68
  • Criminal Procedure Code s.238
  • Criminal Procedure Code s.241
  • Criminal Procedure Code s.242

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Rex v Selwyn and Others (Criminal Case No. 110 of 1934.) [1934] EACA 13 (1 January 1934)
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.