Share
Farah v The Queen (Criminal Appeal No. 316 of 1956) [1956] EACA 11 (1 January 1956)
- Citation
- [1956] EACA 11
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- East African Court of Appeal
- Panel
- O'Connor CJ
- Case number
- Criminal Appeal No. 316 of 1956
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- East African Court of Appeal
- Panel
- O'Connor CJ
- Case number
- Criminal Appeal No. 316 of 1956
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
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. SandhuThe Queen
Respondent Counsel: KeysellAmounts and remedies
- Sentence Imprisonment Months: 18
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Dismissed
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the appellant's actions constituted an attempt to steal under section 389 of the Penal Code.
- 02
Whether the evidence supported the necessary ingredients of attempt as defined by law.
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
Legal principles
- 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.
- 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.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
East African Court of Appeal
Judgment
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. $\langle \mathbf{H}_{\mathcal{A}} \rangle = \mathbf{1}_{\mathcal{A}} \mathbf{1}_{\mathcal{A}} \mathbf{1}_{\mathcal{A}} \mathbf{1}_{\mathcal{A}} \mathbf{1}_{\mathcal{A}} \mathbf{1}_{\mathcal{A}} \mathbf{1}_{\mathcal{A}} \mathbf{1}_{\mathcal{A}} \mathbf{1}_{\mathcal{A}} \mathbf{1}_{\mathcal{A}} \mathbf{1}_{\mathcal{A}} \mathbf{1}_{\mathcal{A}} \mathbf{1}_{\mathcal{A}} \mathbf{1}_{\mathcal{A}} \mathbf{1}_{\mathcal{A}} \mathbf{1}_{\mathcal{A}} \mathbf{1}_{\mathcal{A$
$\mathcal{F} = \{ \mathcal{F} \mid \mathcal{F} \in \mathcal{F} \}$
$\varphi\approx\pi^2$
$\mathcal{A}_{\mathcal{A}}$
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.