[1929] EACA 163

[1929] EACA 163

The court held that the term 'means' in section 4 of the Witchcraft Ordinance (No. 23 of 1925) is broad enough to include spoken words, following the admission by counsel and the language of the statute. However, the conviction could not stand due to a misjoinder of charges, which is a procedural error requiring the conviction to be quashed and a retrial ordered.

Citation
[1929] EACA 163
Parties
Appellant: Rex; Respondent: Shangati Ole Saurol
Court
East African Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Judgment Date
1 January 1929
Case Number
Confirmation Case 446/1929.
Procedural Posture
Criminal Confirmation / Confirmation
Outcome
conviction quashed; retrial ordered
Judges
Crean, Actg J, Thomas, J. (Kenya)
Legal Topics
Witchcraft Offences, Statutory Interpretation, Misjoinder of Charges
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Witchcraft Offences Statutory Interpretation Misjoinder of Charges

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rex

Appellant

Shangati Ole Saurol

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Confirmation / Confirmation

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the word 'means' in section 4 of the Witchcraft Ordinance (No. 23 of 1925) includes spoken words.
  2. 2 Whether the misjoinder of charges invalidates the conviction.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the term 'means' in section 4 of the Witchcraft Ordinance (No. 23 of 1925) is broad enough to include spoken words, following the admission by counsel and the language of the statute. However, the conviction could not stand due to a misjoinder of charges, which is a procedural error requiring the conviction to be quashed and a retrial ordered.

Court Disposition

conviction quashed; retrial ordered

Orders

  • The conviction is quashed due to misjoinder of charges.
  • There should be a retrial.