[1938] EACA 164
The majority of the Court held that the language of section 333 of the Criminal Procedure Code is unequivocal in preserving the right of appeal for an accused person, even after confirmation proceedings have taken place and regardless of the number of judges sitting in confirmation. The Court followed the dictum in...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1938] EACA 164
- Parties
- Appellant: Adika s/o Nyangwara; Appellant: Nyamita s/o Amimo; Appellant: Kibeni s/o Malala; Appellant: Hongo s/o Ngoya; Respondent: Rex
- Court
- East African Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeals Nos. 109, 110, 111 and 112 of 1939
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Confirmation Order
- Outcome
- appeal_allowed
- Judges
- Sheridan CJ, Thacker J
- Legal Topics
- Right of Appeal, Confirmation Proceedings, Criminal Procedure Code 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
Adika s/o Nyangwara
Appellant
Nyamita s/o Amimo
Appellant
Kibeni s/o Malala
Appellant
Hongo s/o Ngoya
Appellant
Rex
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Confirmation Order
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether an order made in confirmation proceedings bars the right of appeal for the accused.
- 2 Whether sections 11 and 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code restrict the right of appeal after confirmation.
- 3 Interpretation of section 333 of the Criminal Procedure Code regarding appeal rights.
Ratio Decidendi
The majority of the Court held that the language of section 333 of the Criminal Procedure Code is unequivocal in preserving the right of appeal for an accused person, even after confirmation proceedings have taken place and regardless of the number of judges sitting in confirmation. The Court followed the dictum in Rex v. Sironga and Another, emphasizing that any restriction on the right of appeal must be expressed in clear and unequivocal terms. Since no such language exists in the relevant sections, the right of appeal remains intact. The Court further reasoned that depriving an accused of such a valuable right would require explicit statutory authority, and in the absence of doubt, the...
Court Disposition
appeal_allowed
Orders
- An appeal lies from the order made in the confirmation proceedings.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
14 paragraphs
# APPELLATE CRIMINAL
# Before SIR JOSEPH SHERIDAN, C. J., THACKER, J. AND SIR CHARLES BELCHER, Ag. J.
#### Rex, Respondent (Original Prosecutor)
### 1. ADIKA S/O NYANGWARA
## 3. KIBENI s/o MALALA
2. NYAMITA $s/o$ AMIMO 4. HONGO $s/o$ NGOYA Appellants (Original accused Nos. 3, 2, 1 and 5 respectively)
Criminal Appeals Nos. 109, 110, 111 and 112 of 1939
Criminal Law—Right of appeal—Confirmation—Whether order on confirmation bars right of appeal—Criminal Procedure Code, sections 11, 333 and 340.
Appellants sought to appeal to the Supreme Court from orders made against them in confirmation proceedings heard before two judges whereby the original sentences were reduced. A member of the Court raised the question as to whether, in view of sections 11 and 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code, there was such a right of appeal from the order made in the confirmation proceedings.
Held (21-9-39).—That an appeal lay from the order made in the confirmation proceedings.
Appellants absent Unrepresented.
Phillips, Crown Counsel, for the Crown.
JUDGMENT.—A question has been raised by a member of the Court as to whether the appellant in this case has a right of appeal in the circumstances that the case has already been dealt with in confirmation. Learned Crown Counsel has submitted that the invariable practice has been that the right of an accused person to appeal. against a conviction prevails even though his sentence may have been confirmed. A majority of the Court are of the opinion that the dictum of Hamilton C. J. in Rex v. Sironga and Another, 7 E. A. L. R. 148 at p. 149 on this point should be followed and that the language of section 333 Criminal Procedure Code clearly supports that dictum and is of such an unequivocal nature as to make it clear that the right of appeal prevails despite any order made confirming the sentence and that, even though the Court sitting in confirmation may have consisted of two or more judges. This view is strengthened when it is considered that to take contrary view would be to deprive an accused person of a valuable right such as that of appeal. To take away such a right as according to section 333 an accused person possesses would require unequivocal language. On the point, did any doubt arise, and the majority view is that it does not, a construction favourable to the accused would have to be placed upon the relevant provisions.
Note.—The judgment was signed by Sir Joseph Sheridan, C. J. and Thacker, J.