Wakilii

Rex v Yusufu (Criminal Appeal No. 152 of 1942)

East African Court of Appeal · [1943] EACA 48 · 1943 Appeal Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal appeal from magistrate's order requiring security for keeping the peace
Decision
Accused set at liberty due to defective order

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

An order under section 42(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code requiring an accused to show cause why he should not execute a bond is invalid if it does not state the purpose for which the bond is to be executed, namely for keeping the peace. A magistrate has no power to order security for good behaviour in proceedings under section 42, which relates only to keeping the peace. The appeal was allowed and the accused directed to be set at liberty.

Outcome

Accused set at liberty due to defective order

Facts

The magistrate, acting under section 42(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, made an order against the appellant requiring him to execute a bond of £100 to remain in force for one year and to obtain three sureties. The order was based on information that on 8 October 1942 the appellant had threatened to stab the informant, Sheikh Omar, if he appeared in Isiolo Manyatta. The appellant appeared to show cause against the order but the cause was disallowed. The magistrate's judgment ordered the appellant to execute a bond of £100 to be of good behaviour for one year and to find sureties, with imprisonment with hard labour for one year in default. The appellant appealed against this order.

Issues

  1. Whether an order under section 42(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code requiring an accused to show cause is valid when it fails to state the purpose for which the bond is to be executed.
  2. Whether a magistrate has power to order security for good behaviour in proceedings brought under section 42 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • Accused directed to be set at liberty.

Rules and key headnotes

Criminal Procedure — Security for Keeping the Peace — Validity of Order
An order under section 42(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code calling upon an accused to show cause why he should not execute a bond is invalid if it does not state the purpose for which the bond is to be executed, namely for keeping the peace.
Criminal Procedure — Security for Good Behaviour — Scope of Section 42
A magistrate has no power to order security for good behaviour in proceedings brought under section 42 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which relates only to security for keeping the peace.
Criminal Procedure Code — Distinction Between Sections 42 and 44
Section 42 of the Criminal Procedure Code governs security for keeping the peace, while section 44 governs security for good behaviour. The two provisions are distinct and a magistrate cannot order good behaviour security under section 42 proceedings.

Legislation cited (4)

  • Criminal Procedure Code s.42
  • Criminal Procedure Code s.42(1)
  • Criminal Procedure Code s.44
  • Criminal Procedure Code s.47

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Rex v Yusufu (Criminal Appeal No. 152 of 1942) [1943] EACA 48 (1 January 1943)
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.