Rex v Wage (Cr.A. 38-1934.)
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 although the statutory three-day period between service of information and trial required by section 230 Criminal Procedure Code had not elapsed, the irregularity could be cured under section 335(a) where no miscarriage of justice or prejudice to the accused occurred. The court found that non-compliance with procedural timing requirements does not vitiate a conviction if no failure of justice results. Appeal dismissed.
Outcome
Conviction upheld and appeal dismissed
Facts
The accused was convicted in the High Court of Tanganyika Territory. The statutory three-day period between service of information and commencement of trial as required by section 230 of the Criminal Procedure Code had not elapsed. The appellant challenged the conviction on the ground of this procedural irregularity. The appellant did not appear before the Court of Appeal. No specific facts regarding the underlying criminal charge are provided in the judgment.
Issues
- Whether failure to give three days' notice of trial in High Court after service of information constitutes an irregularity that may be cured under section 335 of the Criminal Procedure Code where no miscarriage of justice occurred.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (4)
- Criminal Procedure Code of Tanganyika Territory s.230
- Criminal Procedure Code of Tanganyika Territory s.335
- Kenya Criminal Procedure Code s.238
- Kenya Criminal Procedure Code s.367
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.