Download

Uganda Judgment

East African Court of Appeal

Farah v The Queen (Criminal Appeal No. 316 of 1956) [1956] EACA 11 (1 January 1956)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The court held that the appellant's conduct—trying to force open the window of a securely locked car containing a coat, acting furtively, moving away upon police arrival, and falsely denying involvement—constituted an overt act manifesting an intention to steal. These facts satisfied the statutory definition of attempt under section 389 of the Penal Code. The Magistrate was justified in finding that the appellant had the specific purpose of stealing the coat, and the conviction was upheld.

Court disposition

appeal_dismissed

Orders

  • Conviction and sentence of 18 months' imprisonment with hard labour upheld.

02

Material facts

Parties

Ismail Bin Farah

Appellant Counsel: G. S. Sandhu

The Queen

Respondent Counsel: Keysell

Amounts and remedies

  • Sentence Imprisonment Months: 18

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Criminal Appeal / Appeal Dismissed

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
Counsel for the appellant argued that the act of attempting to open the car window was equivocal and did not amount to an attempt to steal the coat inside. The appellant denied tampering with the car and contended that his conduct did not manifest a clear intention to commit theft.
Respondent
Crown counsel submitted that the appellant's furtive behavior, efforts to force the window, and false denial of tampering demonstrated a clear intention to steal. The prosecution maintained that the overt acts and circumstances satisfied the statutory definition of attempt under section 389 of the Penal Code.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Penal Code, section 389

    The necessary ingredients of an attempt are: intention to commit an offence, a beginning to put the intention into execution by means adapted to its fulfilment, and a manifestation of the intention by some overt act.

  2. 02

    R v Eagleton, Dears, 515; R v Robinson (1915) 2 K.B. 342

    The test of whether any further act remained to be done is not law in Kenya and is expressly negatived by section 389.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The court held that the appellant's conduct—trying to force open the window of a securely locked car containing a coat, acting furtively, moving away upon police arrival, and falsely denying involvement—constituted an overt act manifesting an intention to steal. These facts satisfied the statutory definition of attempt under section 389 of the Penal Code. The Magistrate was justified in finding that the appellant had the specific purpose of stealing the coat, and the conviction was upheld.

Obiter and limits

  • The test adopted in R v Eagleton and followed in R v Robinson, namely whether there was any further act remaining to be done, is not law in Kenya and is expressly negatived by section 389 of the Penal Code.

Court disposition

appeal_dismissed

  • Conviction and sentence of 18 months' imprisonment with hard labour upheld.

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

[1956] EACA 11

APPELLATE CRIMINAL

Before SIR KENNETH O'CONNOR, C. J

ISMAIL BIN FARAH, Appellant

. $\nu_{\star}$ . THE QUEEN, Respondent

Criminal Appeal No. 316 of 1956

Criminal Law-Penal Code, sections 270, 389 and 390. Attempt to steal-Necessary ingredients of the offence—Attempt as defined in section 389 of the Penal Code.

The accused was charged with attempting to steal a coat from a parked car which was securely locked. He was seen "hovering around it and trying to open a window". He was convicted. On appeal it was argued that an attempt to open the door of the car was equivocal in its nature and that it did not constitute an attempt to steal the coat which was in it.

Held (2-1-57).—(1) The necessary ingredients of an attempt as defined in section 389 of the Penal Code are:-

$(a)$ an intention to commit an offence;

(b) a beginning to put the intention into execution by means adapted to its fulfilment; and (c) a manifestation of the intention by some overt act. $\cdot$

$\cdots$

$\mathcal{M}^{\mathcal{A}}(x) = \mathcal{M}^{\mathcal{A}}(x)$

(2) In the present case the accused had tried to force the window of the car, had acted furtively, moved off as soon as the police arrived, and had denied falsely tampering with the car at all. $\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{A}}\left(\mathcal{A}\right)$ $\mathcal{A} = \{1,2,3,4\}$ The company of the party $\pmb{\cdot}$

(3) Upon these facts the Magistrate could reasonably regard the accused as having the specific purpose of stealing the coat. Para the companies with the

Appeal dismissed.

Cases cited: R. v. Eagleton, Dears, 515, 538; R. v. Roberts, Dears, 16, 539; R. v. Cope, 16 Cr. App. R. 77; R. v. Bloxham, 29 Cr. App. R. 37; R. v. Robinson, (1915) $-2$ K. B. 342. $\overline{a}$

[*Editor's Note*.—The test adopted by Park, B., in $\dot{R}$ , v. *Eagleton* (supra) and followed in $R$ . v. *Robinson* (supra), namely "whether there was any further act on the prisoner's $\ldots, \ldots$ part remaining to be done", is not law in Kenya. It is expressly negatived by section 389 of the Penal Code according to this decision.] $\epsilon_{\rm{max}} = \epsilon_{\rm{max}}$

$\mathcal{F}(\mathcal{A})$

$G. S.$ Sandhu for the appellant.

Keysell, Crown counsel, for the Crown.

Reported by: A. Q. Malik, Esq., Resident Magistrate, Nairobi.

JUDGMENT.—The appellant and one Warsame s/o Jarma were, on 4th October, 1956, convicted of an attempt to steal a greatcoat from a motor vehicle contrary to sections 270 and 390 of the Penal Code. The appellant was sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment with hard labour. Against his conviction the appellant appeals. $\mathcal{L}^{\text{max}}_{\text{max}}(x) = \mathcal{L}^{\text{max}}_{\text{max}}(x)$ $\mathcal{L}(\mathcal{L}) \to \mathcal{L}(\mathcal{L})$ مالو معربة العداد

I take the following statement of the facts from the judgment of the learned $\mathcal{A}_{\mathcal{A}}(f) = \mathcal{A}_{\mathcal{A}}(f) + \mathcal{A}_{\mathcal{A}}(f) + \mathcal{A}_{\mathcal{A}}(f) + \mathcal{A}_{\mathcal{A}}(f) + \mathcal{A}_{\mathcal{A}}(f) + \mathcal{A}_{\mathcal{A}}(f) + \mathcal{A}_{\mathcal{A}}(f) + \mathcal{A}_{\mathcal{A}}(f) + \mathcal{A}_{\mathcal{A}}(f) + \mathcal{A}_{\mathcal{A}}(f) + \mathcal{A}_{\mathcal{A}}(f) + \mathcal{A}_{\mathcal{A}}(f) + \mathcal{A}_{\mathcal{A}}$ trial magistrate: — Second Margaret "The two accused, Ismail Bin Farah and Warsame Jarma, are charged $\mathcal{A}^{\mathcal{A}}$ with attempting to steal a coat from car KBZ 86 on the evening of 20th September, 1956. First witness left his car outside the Avenue Hotel on the evening in question. His wife's coat was inside and the car was securely

locked. The following morning first witness found signs on the front window $\mathcal{L} = \{ \mathcal{L} \in \mathcal{L} : \mathcal{L} \in \mathcal{L} \}$ of attempts to open it. $\langle \mathbf{H}_{\mathcal{A}} \rangle = \mathbf{1}_{\mathcal{A}} \mathbf{1}_{\mathcal{A}} \mathbf{1}_{\mathcal{A}} \mathbf{1}_{\mathcal{A}} \mathbf{1}_{\mathcal{A}} \mathbf{1}_{\mathcal{A}} \mathbf{1}_{\mathcal{A}} \mathbf{1}_{\mathcal{A}} \mathbf{1}_{\mathcal{A}} \mathbf{1}_{\mathcal{A}} \mathbf{1}_{\mathcal{A}} \mathbf{1}_{\mathcal{A}} \mathbf{1}_{\mathcal{A}} \mathbf{1}_{\mathcal{A}} \mathbf{1}_{\mathcal{A}} \mathbf{1}_{\mathcal{A}} \mathbf{1}_{\mathcal{A$

$\mathcal{F} = \{ \mathcal{F} \mid \mathcal{F} \in \mathcal{F} \}$

$\varphi\approx\pi^2$

$\mathcal{A}_{\mathcal{A}}$

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.

R v Eagleton, Dears, 515, 538

Case cited

R v Roberts, Dears, 16, 539

Case cited

R v Cope, 16 Cr. App. R. 77

Case cited

R v Bloxham, 29 Cr. App. R. 37

Case cited

R v Robinson (1915) 2 K.B. 342

Case cited

Penal Code, sections 270, 389, 390

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.