Wakilii

Rex v Sururei (Con. C. 734-1932.)

East African Court of Appeal · [1932] EACA 12 · 1932 Conviction Quashed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal confirmation from lower court conviction for stock theft
Decision
Accused discharged

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 under section 4 of the Stock and Produce Theft (Amendment) Ordinance 1928, the expression 'found in the possession' must be construed as actual physical possession and does not include stock in the accused's constructive possession or control. The conviction was reversed and the accused discharged as the cow was not found in his physical possession or on his premises.

Outcome

Accused discharged

Facts

The accused was convicted of theft of one head of stock under section 255 of the Penal Code. A cow was stolen sometime in 1929. The accused left the cow with the wife of Arap Silgich along with three other head of cattle. Arap Silgich was not of the accused's clan and the accused had not obtained leave to deposit cattle with him. Arap Silgich became suspicious and reported the matter to the authorities. He took the cattle to his Chief, who brought them to the Kapsabet boma, where the cow was recognized by Kimingech as his. The cow was not found in the accused's actual physical possession or on his premises at the time of discovery.

Issues

  1. Whether section 4 of the Stock and Produce Theft (Amendment) Ordinance 1928 applies where stolen stock was not found in the accused's actual physical possession or on his premises.
  2. Whether the expression 'found in the possession' includes constructive possession or control of stock.

Orders

  • Conviction and sentence reversed.
  • Accused discharged.

Rules and key headnotes

Stock Theft — Possession — Meaning of 'Found in Possession'
Under section 4 of the Stock and Produce Theft (Amendment) Ordinance 1928, the expression 'found in the possession' of the accused must be construed as found in his actual physical possession and does not include stock which may be in his constructive possession or control.
Presumptions — Recent Possession — Stock Theft Ordinance
The provisions of the Stock and Produce Theft (Amendment) Ordinance 1928 do not rest on the presumption arising from recent possession. The time between the theft and the discovery of the possession is immaterial under the Ordinance.
Stock and Produce Theft Ordinance — Burden of Proof
Section 4 of the Stock and Produce Theft (Amendment) Ordinance 1928 deems anyone found in possession of stock or who has stock on his premises in circumstances which may reasonably lead to the belief that such stock has been stolen to have stolen such stock, with the onus cast on the accused to prove that such possession was lawful.

Legislation cited (2)

  • Stock and Produce Theft (Amendment) Ordinance 1928 s.4
  • Penal Code s.255

Cases cited (1)

  • Queen v Dennis [1894] 2 QB 478

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Rex v Sururei (Con. C. 734-1932.) [1932] EACA 12 (1 January 1932)
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.