[1928] EACJ 1
The court held that the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance do not derogate from the earlier and specific provisions of the Stock and Produce Theft Ordinance. Section 3 of the latter requires any court convicting a person of theft of stock or produce to impose a fine of not less than ten times the value...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1928] EACJ 1
- Parties
- Applicant: Crown; Respondent: Wairisha wa Karegi
- Court
- East African Court of Justice
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Case Number
- Confirmation Case 300/1928.
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Confirmation / Confirmation
- Outcome
- sentence confirmed
- Judges
- Barth CJ, Stephens, J
- Legal Topics
- Magistrate Jurisdiction, Sentencing Powers, Stock and Produce Theft, Statutory Interpretation
- 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
Crown
Applicant
Wairisha wa Karegi
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Confirmation / Confirmation
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether a third class Magistrate has jurisdiction to impose a fine exceeding the limit set by section 17(3) of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance in cases under the Stock and Produce Theft Ordinance.
- 2 Whether the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance derogate from the mandatory fine provisions of the Stock and Produce Theft Ordinance.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance do not derogate from the earlier and specific provisions of the Stock and Produce Theft Ordinance. Section 3 of the latter requires any court convicting a person of theft of stock or produce to impose a fine of not less than ten times the value of the stolen property. This requirement is mandatory and applies to all courts, including third class Magistrates, irrespective of the general fine limits set by the Criminal Procedure Ordinance. The court expressly overruled the contrary view taken in Confirmation Case 576/1926, confirming that a third class Magistrate has jurisdiction to impose the statutorily mandated fine,...
Court Disposition
sentence confirmed
Orders
- The sentence of the lower court is confirmed.
- The sentence of rigorous imprisonment is to run from the date of conviction.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
8 paragraphs
## CRIMINAL CONFIRMATION.
### Before SIR JACOB BARTH, C. J., and STEPHENS, J.
#### CROWN.
## $\boldsymbol{v}$ . WAIRISHA wa KAREGI.
# Confirmation Case 300/1928.
- Power of a third class Court to impose, in cases under the Stock and Produce Theft Ordinance (Cap. 79), a fine exceeding the limit set by section 17 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance (Cap. 7). - **Held:**—That the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance<br>do not derogate from the provisions of the earlier Stock and<br>Produce Theft Ordinance, and that a third class subordinate court has jurisdiction to impose a fine of ten times the value of the stock or produce stolen, even if the resulting fine exceeds the sum of $\pounds 20$ .
ORDER.—The short point in this case is whether or not a third class Magistrate has power to impose a fine exceeding Sh. 400 (vide C. P. O., section 17 (3)). The Stock and Produce Theft Ordinance by section 3 enacts: "Whenever any Court shall convict a native of theft of stock or produce the Court shall in addition to or in lieu of imposing any other punishment authorized by law, sentence the native convicted to pay a fine which shall in no case be less than ten times the value of the stock or produce in respect of which the offence has been committed ". In our opinion the provisions of the C. P. O. do not derogate from the provisions of the earlier Stock and Produce Theft Ordinance, and therefore the special provisions of the latter Ordinance making it obligatory on "any Court" convicting a person of the theft of stock or produce to impose a fine of ten times its value are not affected and a third class subordinate Court has jursdiction to impose a fine irrespective of its amount.
This point does not seem to have been argued in Confirma-In our view that case was wrongly tion Case $576/1926$ . decided in so far as it dealt with the jurisdiction of a third class Magistrate to impose a fine of ten times the value of the stock or produce stolen, by holding inferentially that such a Magistrate could not impose a fine in a stock or produce theft case of more than £20, and thereby limiting such a Magistrate's jurisdiction to cases in which ten times the value did not exceed £20. The sentence is confirmed, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment to run from the date of conviction.