Wakilii

Rhemtulla and Another v Reginam (Criminal Appeal No. 443 of 1955)

East African Court of Appeal · [1955] EACA 430 · 1950 Appeal Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal appeal from conviction for stealing by the High Court of Tanganyika
Decision
First appellant's conviction for stealing upheld. Second appellant's conviction substituted from stealing to receiving stolen property.

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 the degree of corroboration required for accomplice evidence may vary depending on the circumstances. The first appellant's conviction for stealing was upheld on the basis of corroborative evidence (coffee beans found in his lorry). The second appellant's conviction for stealing was quashed and substituted with a conviction for receiving, as the evidence showed he came upon the scene only after the theft was complete and exercised joint control over the stolen coffee at his store.

Outcome

First appellant's conviction for stealing upheld. Second appellant's conviction substituted from stealing to receiving stolen property.

Facts

On 26 November 1954, a railway wagon containing 149 bags of Kivu coffee valued at Sh. 114,000 was broken into at Bahi Station, Tanganyika, and the coffee stolen. The crime required complicity of station staff; the station master was separately convicted. The first appellant employed witnesses who testified to his participation in removing the coffee. The stolen coffee was taken immediately to a remote store occupied by the second appellant, where it was re-bagged and the original containers destroyed. All Crown witnesses were accomplices who participated in or knew of the crime. The first appellant's turnboy, Ramadhani, initially implicated both accused but recanted at the preliminary inquiry after being warned by the first appellant, then resumed his original account after being admonished by the Magistrate. Coffee beans of Kivu origin were found in the first appellant's lorry days after the theft.

Issues

  1. Whether the evidence of accomplice witnesses was sufficiently corroborated to sustain the convictions for stealing.
  2. Whether the second appellant participated in the theft or was merely a receiver of stolen property.

Orders

  • Appeal of first appellant dismissed.
  • Conviction of second appellant for stealing quashed.
  • Conviction of second appellant substituted with conviction for receiving stolen property.
  • Sentence of second appellant to stand as appropriate to the substituted conviction.

Rules and key headnotes

Evidence — Accomplices — Corroboration — Degree of Corroboration Required
The degree of corroboration required for accomplice evidence may vary depending on the credibility and circumstances of the accomplice, but an accomplice who changes his story due to fear of the accused rather than natural propensity to lie does not require a higher degree of corroboration than ordinarily required.
Evidence — Accomplices — Corroboration — Nature of Corroborative Evidence
Corroboration of accomplice evidence requires independent testimony in some material particular implicating the accused or tending to connect him with the crime. Evidence that merely confirms the general truth of the accomplice's story without personally implicating the accused does not constitute sufficient corroboration.
Evidence — Accomplices — Corroboration — Separate Consideration for Each Accused
Where multiple accused are tried together on accomplice evidence, the question of corroboration must be considered separately with reference to each accused person.
Criminal Law — Theft — Participation — Aiding and Abetting
A person who comes upon the scene only after a theft has been completed and assists in disposing of the stolen property is not an aider and abettor of the theft, even if there was a prior arrangement to receive the stolen goods at his premises.
Criminal Law — Receiving Stolen Property — Joint Possession
To establish receiving stolen property, it is not necessary to show that the receiver had exclusive possession of the stolen goods; it is sufficient that he had joint possession or exercised joint control with the thief, knowing the goods had been recently stolen.
Criminal Procedure — Appeals — Substitution of Conviction
Where the evidence establishes a different offence from that charged, an appellate court may substitute a conviction for the offence proved, provided the substituted conviction is appropriate to the facts established.

Legislation cited (3)

  • Tanganyika Criminal Procedure Code s.181
  • Eastern African Court of Appeal Rules 1954 rule 36(3)(d)
  • Penal Code s.22

Cases cited (4)

  • Davies v Director of Public Prosecutions [1954] AC 378
  • Faqir Singh v The Emperor (1939) AIR 429 (Lahore)
  • Taibali Mohamedbhai v The Queen (10 EACA 60)
  • R v Muriu and Others (22 EACA 7)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Rhemtulla and Another v Reginam (Criminal Appeal No. 443 of 1955) [1950] EACA 430 (1 January 1950)
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.