[1935] EACA 85
The court found that the evidence demonstrated the appellant drove the bus with criminal disregard for the life and safety of others, satisfying the requirements for manslaughter by negligence as articulated in R. v. Bateman. Furthermore, the court held that section 280 of the Criminal Procedure Code is an enabling...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1935] EACA 85
- Parties
- Appellant: Kaluna Seguija; Respondent: Rex
- Court
- East African Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Judgment Date
- 1 January 1935
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 44/1935.
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Judges
- Francis, J (Uganda), Sheridan, P, Webb, J
- Legal Topics
- Manslaughter by Negligence, Criminal Disregard, Sentencing Principles, Criminal Procedure, Driving Offences
- Source Language
- english
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Kaluna Seguija
Appellant
Rex
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the evidence established manslaughter by criminal negligence on the part of the appellant.
- 2 Whether the court could consider unsworn information regarding the prevalence of similar offences when assessing sentence under section 280 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the evidence demonstrated the appellant drove the bus with criminal disregard for the life and safety of others, satisfying the requirements for manslaughter by negligence as articulated in R. v. Bateman. Furthermore, the court held that section 280 of the Criminal Procedure Code is an enabling provision, permitting the court to consider information from responsible officers regarding the prevalence of similar offences for sentencing purposes, even if such information is not given on oath, unless the accused challenges its accuracy. As the appellant did not challenge the accuracy of the information, the court was entitled to consider it in determining sentence. The...
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- Conviction and sentence for manslaughter by negligence affirmed.
- Appellant to serve three years' imprisonment with hard labour.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
16 paragraphs
### COURT OF APPEAL FOR EASTERN AFRICA.
# Before SIR JOSEPH SHERIDAN, P., WEBB, J. (Kenya), and FRANCIS, J. (Uganda).
### REX, Respondent (Original Prosecutor)
# KALUNA SEGUJA, Appellant (Original Accused). Criminal Appeal 44/1935.
# Criminal Law—Manslaughter—Criminal negligence—Sentence— Information as to the prevalence of the offence-Criminal Procedure Code, section 280.
The appellant was convicted of manslaughter by negligence in driving a motor-bus, the facts proved being that in passing a stationary car owing to the speed at which he was driving and the state of the road, which was wet, his bus ran on to the track at the side of the road and hit a cyclist. After conviction, and before sentence, Crown Counsel stated in reply to the Judge that during 1934 there had been a large number of motor accidents in the district causing 13 deaths and injury to 160 persons.
The appellant was sentenced to three years' imprisonment with hard labour and declared disqualified from obtaining a driving licence for five years from the date of his release.
#### $Held$ (23-4-35).—
$\overline{ }$
(1) That the evidence shown that the appellant had shown a criminal disregard for the life and safety of others (R. v. Bateman, 19 Cr. App. R. 8.).
(2) That section 280 of the Uganda Criminal Procedure Code is an enabling section and does not preclude the Court from taking into consideration, for the purpose of assessing sentence, information afforded by a responsible officer even though not given on oath. Evidence on oath is only required when the accuracy of the information is challenged by the accused.
Appellant in person.
Mathew (Crown Counsel) for the Crown.
**JUDGMENT.**—The evidence in this case supports the conviction for manslaughter by negligence on the part of the prisoner when driving a bus. Crown Counsel at the trial brought to the notice of the Court the case of $R$ . v. Bateman (19 Cr. App. R., p. 8), which lays down the ingedients of the offence of manslaughter by negligence and no doubt the learned Chief Justice satisfied himself that in the circumstances of the case the prisoner drove in such a manner as to show a criminal disregard for the life
and safety of others. Crown Counsel has invited us to express our view of the propriety of his having informed the Court, with a view to assessing sentence, of the prevalence of such offences, regard being had to the provisions of section 280 of the Criminal Procedure Code which enacts: "The Court may, before passing sentence, receive such evidence as it thinks fit, in order to inform itself as to the sentence proper to be passed". In our opinion that section is an enabling section and does not preclude a Court from taking into consideration information afforded by a responsible officer, the accuracy of which there is no reason to doubt. even though that information be not on oath. In the event of its accuracy being challenged by the prisoner then, in our opinion, it would be necessary to adduce evidence but not otherwise.
The appeal is dismissed.