[1943] EACA 48
The court held that the magistrate's order was fatally defective because it failed to state the purpose for which the bond was to be executed, namely for keeping the peace. The proceedings were conducted under section 42 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which only permits orders for security to keep the peace, not...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1943] EACA 48
- Parties
- Appellant: Awad s/o Yusufu; Respondent: Rex
- Court
- East African Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal No. 152 of 1942
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal allowed; appellant acquitted and released
- Judges
- Hayden J, Sheridan CJ
- Legal Topics
- Security for Keeping the Peace, Bond Conditions, Magistrate Orders, Criminal Procedure Code Section 42, Good Behaviour Orders
- 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
Awad s/o Yusufu
Appellant
Rex
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the magistrate's order requiring the appellant to execute a bond was valid without stating the purpose for which the bond was to be executed.
- 2 Whether the magistrate had power to order security for good behaviour under section 42 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
- 3 Whether the reference to 'good behaviour' in the judgment was erroneous given the proceedings were under section 42.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the magistrate's order was fatally defective because it failed to state the purpose for which the bond was to be executed, namely for keeping the peace. The proceedings were conducted under section 42 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which only permits orders for security to keep the peace, not for good behaviour. The reference to 'good behaviour' in the judgment was an error, as section 42 does not empower the court to order security for good behaviour. As a result, the order was invalid and the appeal was allowed. The accused was directed to be set at liberty.
Court Disposition
appeal allowed; appellant acquitted and released
Orders
- The appeal is allowed.
- The accused is directed to be set at liberty.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
17 paragraphs
# APPELLATE CRIMINAL
BEFORE SIR JOSEPH SHERIDAN, Č. J., AND HAYDEN, J.
## REX, Respondent $\mathbf{v}$ .
### AWAD s/o YUSUFU, Appellant
#### Criminal Appeal No. 152 of 1942
Criminal Law and Procedure—Security for keeping the peace—Order calling upon accused to show cause invalid unless it states the condition of the bond-No power to order security for good behaviour in cases coming under section 42 of the Criminal Procedure Code-Criminal Procedure Code, sections 42 and 47. $\frac{1}{2}$
Acting under section 42 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code the magistrate made an order against the appellant in the following terms, viz.:-
"Information having been received that on 8th October, 1942, you did threaten to stab the informant, Sheikh Omar, if he appeared in Isiolo Manyatta at Isiolo, you are hereby required to execute a bond of £100 (Sh. 2,000) which shall remain in force for the period of one year from the time of execution and that you will obtain three sureties who shall be male members of your tribe (Dolbahanta)".
Appellant appeared to show cause against this order, but the cause was disallowed and the judgment ordered the appellant "to execute a bond of £100 to be of good behaviour for the period of one year after execution" and to find sureties, etc., with imprisonment with hard labour for one year in default.
#### Appellant appealed.
Held (25-2-43).-(1) That the order which was the basis of the proceedings was invalid in as much as it did not state the purpose for which the bond was to be executed, namely for keeping the peace.
(2) That the reference to good behaviour in the judgment was an error since the proceedings were under section 42 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
#### Appellant in person.
#### Dennison, Crown Counsel, for the Crown.
JUDGMENT.—After questioning the accused through the Court Interpreter we have very little doubt that the accused did not understand what he was called upon to do, but we are not deciding this appeal on that basis.
With the assistance of the learned Crown Counsel we have examined the proceedings, and found that the order which is the basis of the proceedings is defective inasmuch as it does not state the purpose for which the bond was to be executed. It should have stated that the accused was being called on to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond for keeping the peace. This is a fatal defect. If the order had been a valid order we should have reduced the amount of the bond very considerably for the amount mentioned seems to us to be excessive. The reference to "good behaviour" in the judgment is an error for the proceedings were not under section 44.
The appeal is allowed and the accused is directed to be set at liberty. In making this order, which we are obliged to make, we think it well in the accused's own interests to warn him of the consequences of his failing to keep the peace and the grave peril he will expose himself to if he attempts to put into force any threat against the complainant or anyone else.