Download

Uganda Judgment

East African Court of Appeal

Bharaj and Another v Rex (Criminal Appeals Nos. 124 and 125 of 1945) [1945] EACA 32 (1 January 1945)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

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

Appellant

Nazir Ahmed

Appellant

Rex

Respondent Counsel: Kingsley

03

Procedural history

  1. 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

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

Source document

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

East African Court of Appeal

Judgment

[1945] EACA 32

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.

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Chung Chuck v. The King (1930) A.C. 244

Case cited

Order in Council (relevant to appeals to Privy Council)

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

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.

About this JurisAssist collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.