Wakilii

The Queen v Jessop and Another (Criminal Appeal No. 127 of 1956)

East African Court of Appeal · [1956] EACA 31 · 1956 Appeal Dismissed — Preliminary Objection Upheld AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Case stated by the Crown appealing a magistrate's order to hold a preliminary enquiry rather than try the accused summarily
Decision
Appeal dismissed for want of jurisdiction; magistrate's preliminary enquiry order stands

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 there had been no 'hearing and determination' within section 367 of the Criminal Procedure Code where the magistrate declined to try the accused summarily and ordered a preliminary enquiry instead. A hearing and determination requires evidence to be heard and the charge disposed of by acquittal or conviction. Where a magistrate refuses jurisdiction on a preliminary objection without hearing evidence, the proper remedy is mandamus, not case stated.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed for want of jurisdiction; magistrate's preliminary enquiry order stands

Facts

The two accused were charged with offences under the Customs Management Act 1952. Three original charges were filed and the accused pleaded not guilty. Before the hearing date, the prosecution withdrew those charges and filed six amended charges. Before any evidence was heard on the amended charges, counsel for the accused objected under section 218 of the Criminal Procedure Code, asserting the right of one accused (a European) to be tried exclusively by the Supreme Court. The magistrate upheld this objection and ordered a preliminary enquiry under Part VIII of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Crown sought to appeal this order by way of case stated under section 367 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The respondents raised a preliminary objection that there had been no 'hearing and determination' and therefore no jurisdiction to state a case.

Issues

  1. Whether a magistrate's order to hold a preliminary enquiry under Part VIII of the Criminal Procedure Code, after declining jurisdiction to try a European accused summarily, constitutes a 'hearing and determination' within section 367 of the Criminal Procedure Code such that the Crown may appeal by way of case stated.

Orders

  • Preliminary objection upheld.
  • Court has no jurisdiction to decide the question raised on the case stated.
  • Case stated dismissed.

Rules and key headnotes

Criminal Procedure — Case Stated — Meaning of 'Hearing and Determination'
A criminal charge is 'heard and determined' within section 367 of the Criminal Procedure Code when evidence in support of it is heard and the charge is disposed of either by acquittal or conviction of the accused.
Criminal Procedure — Case Stated — Refusal of Jurisdiction on Preliminary Objection
Where a magistrate refuses to try accused persons upon a charge because the court considers it lacks jurisdiction and can only conduct a preliminary enquiry with a view to committal to the Supreme Court, and no evidence has been heard, this does not constitute a 'hearing and determination' of that charge within section 367 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Criminal Procedure — Case Stated — Withdrawal and Substitution of Charges
Where original charges are withdrawn and new charges substituted before any evidence is heard, and the magistrate declines jurisdiction on a preliminary objection without arraigning the accused on the substituted charges or hearing evidence, there has been no 'hearing and determination' of either the original or substituted charges.
Criminal Procedure — Case Stated — Appropriate Remedy Where No Hearing
Where a magistrate declines jurisdiction on account of a preliminary objection without hearing and determining the matter, the appropriate remedy is an application for mandamus to compel the magistrate to hear and determine according to law, not an appeal by way of case stated under section 367 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Statutory Interpretation — Meaning of 'Hearing' in Criminal Procedure Statutes
Prima facie 'hearing' includes a 'determination' — a final disposal of the matter. A fortiori where the statutory language is 'hearing and determination', both elements must be present for the provision to apply.

Legislation cited (14)

  • Criminal Procedure Code s.367
  • Customs Management Act 1952 s.164
  • Customs Management Act 1952 s.143
  • Customs Management Act 1952 s.149
  • Criminal Procedure Code s.218
  • Criminal Procedure Code s.219
  • Criminal Procedure Code s.89(5)
  • Criminal Procedure Code s.87
  • Criminal Procedure Code s.217
  • Criminal Procedure Code s.205
  • Criminal Procedure Code s.228
  • Summary Jurisdiction Act 1857 s.2
  • Summary Jurisdiction Act 1879 s.33(1)
  • Advocates Ordinance 1949 s.3(2)(b)

Cases cited (16)

  • Attorney-General v Hill (23 KLR Part I 25)
  • Commissioner of Stamps, Straits Settlements v Oei Tjong Swan and Others [1933] AC 378
  • Regina v Justices of West Riding of Yorkshire (1866) 6 B & S 802
  • Muir v Hore (1877) 47 LJ (MC) 17
  • Pratt v AA Sites Ltd [1938] 2 KB 459
  • Wakefield Local Board of Health v West Riding Railway Co (30 JP 628)
  • Sheikh Noordin v Sheikh Bros Ltd (1951) EAHC 42
  • R v Wisbech JJ (1890) 54 JP 743
  • Ex parte McLeod (25 JP 84)
  • R v Kesteven JJ (114 ER 721)
  • R v Sutton Coldfield (1874) 9 QB 153
  • Regina v Economides (Criminal Appeal No. 108 of 1956)
  • Foss v Best [1906] 2 KB 105
  • Re Green (51 LJ QB 25)
  • Attorney-General v SM Bashir (1948) 23 KLR Part I 78
  • Ex parte Gorman [1893] AC 23

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

The Queen v Jessop and Another (Criminal Appeal No. 127 of 1956) [1956] EACA 31 (1 January 1956)
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.