[1948] EACA 34
The Court held that under the Uganda Criminal Procedure Code, an appeal to the Court of Appeal for Eastern Africa from a decision of the High Court in its appellate jurisdiction requires a conviction and sentence or a statutory right of appeal for the specific order. The order by the High Court Judge directing the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1948] EACA 34
- Parties
- Appellant: Trikamji Nathu; Respondent: Rex
- Court
- East African Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal No. 153 of 1948
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal From High Court Order
- Outcome
- appeal_dismissed
- Judges
- Edwards CJ, Gray CJ, Nihill P
- Legal Topics
- Appellate Jurisdiction, Right of Appeal, Interlocutory Orders, 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
Trikamji Nathu
Appellant
Rex
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From High Court Order
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether an order by a High Court Judge directing a magistrate to take further evidence during an appeal is appealable to the Court of Appeal for Eastern Africa.
- 2 Whether rule 22 of the East African Court of Appeal Rules allows appeals against interlocutory orders in criminal matters.
- 3 Whether there is statutory authority for appealing such orders under the Uganda Criminal Procedure Code.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court held that under the Uganda Criminal Procedure Code, an appeal to the Court of Appeal for Eastern Africa from a decision of the High Court in its appellate jurisdiction requires a conviction and sentence or a statutory right of appeal for the specific order. The order by the High Court Judge directing the magistrate to take further evidence is not a final judgment or an order for which a right of appeal is provided by statute. Rule 22 of the East African Court of Appeal Rules is interpreted as applying only to civil appeals and does not extend the right of appeal to interlocutory orders in criminal matters. Therefore, the appeal against the High Court's order cannot be entertained.
Court Disposition
appeal_dismissed
Orders
- The appeal is not entertained as there is no statutory right of appeal against the order in question.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
16 paragraphs
## COURT OF APPEAL FOR EASTERN AFRICA
Before SIR BARCLAY NIHILL, C. J. (Kenya), EDWARDS, C. J. (Uganda), and SIR JOHN GRAY, C. J. (Zanzibar)
REX, Respondent (Original Prosecutor)
$\mathbf{1}$
TRIKAMJI NATHU, Appellant (Original Accused)
Criminal Appeal No. 153 of 1948
(Appeal from decision of H. M. High Court of Uganda)
Criminal Procedure (Uganda)—During hearing of Appeal to High Court Judge orders Magistrate to take further evidence—Appeal against order—No appeal to Court of Appeal for Eastern Africa-Uganda Criminal Procedure Code, sections 314, 315 and 320-Decision of High Court-East African Court of Appeal Rules, 1925, rule 22—Uganda Civil Procedure Ordinance, section 75.
Held (6-8-48).—Under the Uganda Criminal Procedure Code, before a person aggrieved by a decision of the High Court in its appellate jurisdiction may appeal to the Court of Appeal there must be a conviction and sentence upon which to found an appeal, unless it be an order of a kind concerning which the Criminal Procedure Code bestows a right of appeal.
Semble.-That rule 22 of the East African Court of Appeal Rules has reference only to civil appeals.
Appellant absent, unrepresented.
Todd, Crown Counsel (Kenya), for the Crown.
JUDGMENT (delivered by SIR BARCLAY NIHILL, C. J.).—This purports to be an appeal against an order made by Mr. Justice Pearson during the hearing of an appeal in the High Court of Uganda ordering the magistrate to take further evidence. The appeal before him was from a conviction for an offence under the Uganda Mining Ordinance. We are of the opinion that the order complained of is not one which is appealable against to this Court.
Under section 320 of the Uganda Criminal Procedure Code any person aggrieved by a "decision" of the High Court in its appellate jurisdiction may appeal to this Court on a matter of law (not including severity of sentence) but this section must be read together with section 314 and section 315. In section 314 are set out the powers the High Court may exercise in dealing with appeals from Subordinate Courts and these powers apply "mutatis mutandis" to appeal from the High Court of Uganda to this Court (section 320). From a perusal of these powers it is clear that in a criminal matter there must be a conviction and sentence upon which to found an appeal unless it be an order of a kind concerning which the Criminal Procedure Code bestows a right of appeal.
By section 315 when a case is "decided" on appeal by the High Court it certifies its judgment. In our view therefore there can be no doubt that the word "decision" in section 320 must mean the final judgment or order made by the High Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction under section 314.
Counsel for the appellant who has not appeared before us but has submitted a memorandum in support of the appeal has submitted that rule 22 of the rules of this Court clearly envisages appeals against interlocutory orders. We think that this rule has reference probably to Civil Appeals only but whether this be so or not it can only refer to orders of a kind concerning which a right of appeal lies by statute, for example the kind of orders set out in section 75 of the Uganda Civil Procedure Ordinance. In the present case there is no statutory provision which confers a right of appeal against an order to take additional evidence made by a Judge during the hearing of an appeal before him from a conviction in a subordinate Court and it follows therefore that the prayer contained in this memorandum of appeal cannot be entertained.