Wakilii

Rex v Singh and Another (criminal Appeals Nos. 113 and 114 of 1946)

East African Court of Appeal · [1946] EACA 56 · 1946 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal appeals from conviction for criminal trespass by Resident Magistrate, Nairobi
Decision
Appellants' convictions for criminal trespass upheld; fines of Sh. 800 and Sh. 600 respectively with imprisonment in default and £10 costs confirmed

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 a magistrate has discretion in granting adjournments under section 203 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and the refusal of an adjournment in circumstances where the trial had been repeatedly adjourned, the magistrate was due to transfer, and defence witnesses should have been available was a proper exercise of discretion. The Court further held that entry onto premises with the consent of one co-possessor does not negate criminal trespass where the entry was made with unlawful intent to turn out another possessor by threats.

Outcome

Appellants' convictions for criminal trespass upheld; fines of Sh. 800 and Sh. 600 respectively with imprisonment in default and £10 costs confirmed

Facts

The appellants were charged with criminal trespass contrary to section 303(1) of the Penal Code. The trial commenced on 22nd January 1946 and was adjourned multiple times over six weeks, resuming on 6th March 1946. The magistrate, who was due to transfer two days later, informed the parties he would sit until the case was completed. At 6.45 p.m., the appellants' advocate applied for an adjournment to the following day to call two witnesses not in attendance and to recall a prosecution witness who had not been cross-examined. The magistrate refused the application. The appellants were convicted and fined. The magistrate found that the appellants had entered the premises with the unlawful intent of turning out the complainant by threats, notwithstanding that entry was effected with the permission of one of the co-possessors.

Issues

  1. Whether the learned Magistrate erred in refusing an adjournment application made at 6.45 p.m. on the ground that defence witnesses were not in attendance.
  2. Whether the conviction for criminal trespass was wrong because the appellants were brought onto the premises by a partner of the complainant.

Orders

  • Appeals dismissed.

Rules and key headnotes

Criminal Procedure — Adjournments — Magistrate's Discretion — Section 203 Criminal Procedure Code
A magistrate has discretion under section 203 of the Criminal Procedure Code in the matter of adjournments, and refusal of an adjournment application is not an improper exercise of discretion where the trial has been repeatedly adjourned, witnesses should have been in attendance on the scheduled trial date, and the magistrate has good reason to complete the case expeditiously.
Criminal Procedure — Adjournments — Duty to Secure Witness Attendance
It is the duty of both prosecution and defence to ensure that their witnesses are in attendance at trial on the scheduled date. Where the defence dispenses with the attendance of witnesses at trial, it must be prepared to suffer the consequences of their unavailability.
Criminal Trespass — Entry with Consent of Co-Possessor — Unlawful Intent
The offence of criminal trespass is complete when there is entry with one of the unlawful intents set out in the statute, and the fact that entry was effected with the permission or consent of one of the co-possessors is immaterial where the entry was made with intent to turn out another possessor by threats.

Legislation cited (2)

  • Penal Code s.303(1)
  • Criminal Procedure Code s.203

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Rex v Singh and Another (criminal Appeals Nos. 113 and 114 of 1946) [1946] EACA 56 (1 January 1946)
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.