[1945] EACA 32
The Court of Appeal for Eastern Africa, following the Privy Council's interpretation of an identical Order in Council, held that it is not competent for the Court of Appeal to grant leave to appeal to the Privy Council in criminal matters. The authority to grant such leave does not reside with the Court of Appeal;...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1945] EACA 32
- Parties
- Appellant: Kartar Singh Bharaj; Appellant: Nazir Ahmed; Respondent: Rex
- Court
- East African Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeals Nos. 124 and 125 of 1945
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Privy Council
- Outcome
- applications dismissed
- Judges
- Graham Paul CJ, Sheridan CJ, Whitley CJ
- Legal Topics
- Appeals to Privy Council, Leave to Appeal, Jurisdiction of Court of Appeal
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Kartar Singh Bharaj
Appellant
Nazir Ahmed
Appellant
Rex
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Privy Council
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Court of Appeal for Eastern Africa has the competence to grant leave to appeal to the Privy Council in a criminal matter.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court of Appeal for Eastern Africa, following the Privy Council's interpretation of an identical Order in Council, held that it is not competent for the Court of Appeal to grant leave to appeal to the Privy Council in criminal matters. The authority to grant such leave does not reside with the Court of Appeal; instead, applicants must apply directly to the Privy Council if they wish to pursue an appeal in a criminal case. The applications for leave were therefore dismissed.
Court Disposition
applications dismissed
Orders
- The applications for leave to appeal to the Privy Council are dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
13 paragraphs
## COURT OF APPEAL FOR EASTERN AFRICA
Before SIR JOSEPH SHERIDAN, C. J. (Kenya), SIR G. GRAHAM PAUL, C. J. (Tanganyika) and SIR NORMAN WHITLEY, C. J. (Uganda)
KARTAR SINGH BHARAJ and NAZIR AHMED, Appellants (Original Appellants and Accused)
REX, Respondent (Original Respondent and Prosecutor)
Criminal Appeals Nos. 124 and 125 of 1945
(Appeals from decision of H. M. Supreme Court of Kenya)
Criminal Procedure—Appeal to Privy Council—Power of Court of Appeal to grant leave to appeal—Criminal matter.
The Court of Appeal for Eastern Africa having dismissed the appeals of the appellants from a judgment of the Supreme Court of Kenya affirming a judgment of the Resident Magistrate, Nairobi, the appellants applied to the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal to the Privy Council.
Held (2-11-45).—That it is not competent for the Court of Appeal to grant leave to appeal to the Privy Council in a criminal matter.
Chung Chuck v. The King (1930) A. C. 244 followed.
Kingsley, Crown Counsel (Tanganyika), for the Crown.
ORDER (delivered by Sir JOSEPH SHERIDAN, C. J.).—These are applications for leave to appeal to the Privy Council in a criminal case.
On the construction of an Order in Council identical in its terms with the Order in Council in these territories, the Privy Council has held that it is not competent for the Court of Appeal to grant leave to appeal in a criminal matter (Chung Chuck v. The King (1930) A. C. 244). It is a matter for the applicant to apply to the Privy Council direct if so advised. The applications are dismissed.