Rex v Sheshaho (Ct. App. No. 105 of 1938.)
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 of Appeal substituted the conviction for rape with a conviction for defilement. The evidence showed the girl was promised money and the question of consent was in doubt. Where an accused is charged on two counts—rape and defilement—the appellate court is competent to substitute a conviction of defilement for rape. The sentence was upheld and the appeal dismissed with this variation.
Outcome
Conviction altered from rape to defilement; sentence upheld
Facts
The appellant was convicted by the High Court of Uganda on two charges: rape and defilement. The evidence showed that the girl was promised cents by the appellant. They were found in a position suggesting consensual activity. The girl cried out during the act. The trial court convicted the appellant of rape. The appellant appealed the conviction to the Court of Appeal for Eastern Africa, appearing absent and unrepresented.
Issues
- Whether the conviction for rape should be upheld or substituted with a conviction for defilement.
- Whether the Court of Appeal was competent to substitute a conviction of defilement for rape where the accused was charged on both counts.
Orders
- Conviction for rape set aside.
- Conviction for defilement substituted.
- Sentence to stand.
- Appeal dismissed with variation in conviction.
Rules and key headnotes
Cases cited (1)
- Rex v Yonasani (4 E.A.C.A. 29)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.