Wakilii

Wahid v Naranjee and Another (Criminal Revision Case No. 225 of 1947)

East African Court of Appeal · [1947] EACA 58 · 1947 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for revision of magistrate's order made during pending criminal trial
Decision
Application dismissed without hearing; matter remitted to magistrate's court for continuation of trial

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 declined to exercise revisional jurisdiction over a magistrate's order made during a pending criminal trial. Revision is discretionary and the Court is not obligated to proceed to revision or to be forced to consider a case in revision. The Court would be reluctant to interfere with pre-plea orders unless flagrantly illegal and unjust. Parties have no right to a hearing in revision matters by filing a notice of motion.

Outcome

Application dismissed without hearing; matter remitted to magistrate's court for continuation of trial

Facts

The accused were facing criminal charges before the Resident Magistrate, Nairobi. Before plea, the magistrate made an order amending or substituting the charges originally laid against the accused. Dissatisfied with this order, the accused applied to a Judge of the Supreme Court in Chambers by notice of motion seeking revision of the magistrate's order while the criminal trial was still pending. The notice of motion was listed for hearing before the Judge without the Judge's permission.

Issues

  1. Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction under section 363 of the Criminal Procedure Code to revise criminal proceedings that have not been concluded before a subordinate court.
  2. Whether the Court should exercise its discretion to interfere with a magistrate's order made before plea in amendment or substitution of charges during a pending trial.
  3. Whether parties have a right to a hearing in revision matters by filing and serving a notice of motion.

Orders

  • No order in revision made.
  • Application not heard.
  • Record to be returned to the court for trial.
  • Registrar to inform advocates of the terms of this order.

Rules and key headnotes

Criminal Procedure — Revision — Discretion of Court — Application for revision of order in pending trial
Revision is a matter of discretion and the Court does not recognize that it is under any obligation to proceed to revision or that it can be forced to consider a case in revision upon the filing of an application together with the record of the lower court.
Criminal Procedure — Revision — Jurisdiction under section 363 Criminal Procedure Code — Interference with proceedings not concluded
There is doubt whether section 363 of the Criminal Procedure Code confers jurisdiction to enter into revision of criminal proceedings which have not been concluded before a subordinate court, and the Court would be very reluctant and slow to interfere with an order made during the course of a pending trial.
Criminal Procedure — Revision — Hearing of parties — Discretion of Court
It is within the discretion of the Supreme Court whether, in a case in which it decides to revise, the matter should be listed for hearing of the parties concerned or their advocates, and such a hearing is not to be regarded as a matter of right to be exercised by the filing and service of an application.
Criminal Procedure — Revision — Standard for interference — Orders made during pending trial
Where section 363 of the Criminal Procedure Code gives power to interfere with an order of a subordinate court made in the course of a trial that is still pending, the Court would not be inclined to interfere in revision unless it is flagrantly apparent that the order is illegal and will do injustice.

Legislation cited (2)

  • Criminal Procedure Code s.363
  • Criminal Procedure Code s.363(2)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Wahid v Naranjee and Another (Criminal Revision Case No. 225 of 1947) [1947] EACA 58 (1 January 1947)
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.