Share
Bharaj and Another v Rex (Criminal Appeals Nos. 124 and 125 of 1945) [1945] EACA 32 (1 January 1945)
- Citation
- [1945] EACA 32
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- East African Court of Appeal
- Panel
- Graham Paul CJ, Sheridan CJ, Whitley CJ
- Case number
- Criminal Appeals Nos. 124 and 125 of 1945
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- East African Court of Appeal
- Panel
- Graham Paul CJ, Sheridan CJ, Whitley CJ
- Case number
- Criminal Appeals Nos. 124 and 125 of 1945
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The Court of Appeal for Eastern Africa, following the Privy Council's interpretation of an identical Order in Council, held that it is not competent for the Court of Appeal to grant leave to appeal to the Privy Council in criminal matters. The authority to grant such leave does not reside with the Court of Appeal; instead, applicants must apply directly to the Privy Council if they wish to pursue an appeal in a criminal case. The applications for leave were therefore dismissed.
Court disposition
applications dismissed
Orders
- The applications for leave to appeal to the Privy Council are dismissed.
02
Material facts
Parties
Kartar Singh Bharaj
AppellantNazir Ahmed
AppellantRex
Respondent Counsel: Kingsley03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Privy Council
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
Whether the Court of Appeal for Eastern Africa has the competence to grant leave to appeal to the Privy Council in a criminal matter.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The appellants sought leave from the Court of Appeal to appeal to the Privy Council following the dismissal of their criminal appeals. They argued that the Court of Appeal possessed the authority to grant such leave under the relevant Order in Council.
- Respondent
- The Crown, represented by Kingsley, opposed the applications, relying on precedent and the construction of the Order in Council, arguing that the Court of Appeal lacks jurisdiction to grant leave to appeal to the Privy Council in criminal matters.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Chung Chuck v. The King (1930) A.C. 244
The Court of Appeal does not have the power to grant leave to appeal to the Privy Council in criminal cases.
- 02
Order in Council (identical terms as construed by Privy Council)
Applicants in criminal matters must apply directly to the Privy Council for leave to appeal.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The Court of Appeal for Eastern Africa, following the Privy Council's interpretation of an identical Order in Council, held that it is not competent for the Court of Appeal to grant leave to appeal to the Privy Council in criminal matters. The authority to grant such leave does not reside with the Court of Appeal; instead, applicants must apply directly to the Privy Council if they wish to pursue an appeal in a criminal case. The applications for leave were therefore dismissed.
Court disposition
applications dismissed
- The applications for leave to appeal to the Privy Council are dismissed.
Source and reliance status
East African Court of Appeal
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
East African Court of Appeal
Judgment
COURT OF APPEAL FOR EASTERN AFRICA
Before SIR JOSEPH SHERIDAN, C. J. (Kenya), SIR G. GRAHAM PAUL, C. J. (Tanganyika) and SIR NORMAN WHITLEY, C. J. (Uganda)
KARTAR SINGH BHARAJ and NAZIR AHMED, Appellants (Original Appellants and Accused)
REX, Respondent (Original Respondent and Prosecutor)
Criminal Appeals Nos. 124 and 125 of 1945
(Appeals from decision of H. M. Supreme Court of Kenya)
Criminal Procedure—Appeal to Privy Council—Power of Court of Appeal to grant leave to appeal—Criminal matter.
The Court of Appeal for Eastern Africa having dismissed the appeals of the appellants from a judgment of the Supreme Court of Kenya affirming a judgment of the Resident Magistrate, Nairobi, the appellants applied to the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal to the Privy Council.
Held (2-11-45).—That it is not competent for the Court of Appeal to grant leave to appeal to the Privy Council in a criminal matter.
Chung Chuck v. The King (1930) A. C. 244 followed.
Kingsley, Crown Counsel (Tanganyika), for the Crown.
ORDER (delivered by Sir JOSEPH SHERIDAN, C. J.).—These are applications for leave to appeal to the Privy Council in a criminal case.
On the construction of an Order in Council identical in its terms with the Order in Council in these territories, the Privy Council has held that it is not competent for the Court of Appeal to grant leave to appeal in a criminal matter (Chung Chuck v. The King (1930) A. C. 244). It is a matter for the applicant to apply to the Privy Council direct if so advised. The applications are dismissed.
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.