Share
Rex v Kyononeka and Another (Cr.A 69/1934.) [1937] EACA 151 (1 January 1937)
- Citation
- [1937] EACA 151
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- East African Court of Appeal
- Panel
- Abrahams CJ, Ag P (Uganda), Lucie-Smith Ag CJ (Kenya), Webb, J
- Case number
- Cr.A 69/1934.
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- East African Court of Appeal
- Panel
- Abrahams CJ, Ag P (Uganda), Lucie-Smith Ag CJ (Kenya), Webb, J
- Case number
- Cr.A 69/1934.
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The Court held that, despite the appellants being charged with the murder of the same person, the fact that they were indicted separately but tried together rendered the proceedings a nullity. The principles of English law, as reflected in section 134 of the Criminal Procedure Code Uganda, require that accused persons be properly joined in the same information for a joint trial. The consent of the accused to the irregular procedure does not cure the jurisdictional defect. Accordingly, the convictions were set aside and a retrial was ordered.
Court disposition
conviction_set_aside_and_retrial_ordered
Orders
- The convictions are set aside.
- The appellants are to be tried according to law.
02
Material facts
Parties
Kristofa Male s/o Nikodemu Kyononeka and another
AppellantRex
Respondent Counsel: Turton (Attorney-General, Uganda)03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From High Court
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the trial of two accused on separate informations but tried together constitutes a nullity under section 134 of the Criminal Procedure Code Uganda.
- 02
Whether the consent of the accused to the irregular procedure cures the jurisdictional defect.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The appellants were absent and unrepresented; no arguments were presented on their behalf.
- Respondent
- The Crown, represented by Turton, submitted that two accused were tried on two separate informations, rendering the trial a nullity, relying on Rex v. Crane and Rex v. Dennis and Parker.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Rex v. Dennis and Parker (1924) 1 K.B. 867
Where two persons are indicted separately and tried together, the proceedings are a nullity.
- 02
Rex v. Dennis and Parker (1924) 1 K.B. 867
Consent of the accused to an irregular trial procedure does not cure the want of jurisdiction.
- 03
Criminal Procedure Code Uganda, section 134
Section 134 of the Criminal Procedure Code Uganda requires proper joinder of accused persons in informations.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The Court held that, despite the appellants being charged with the murder of the same person, the fact that they were indicted separately but tried together rendered the proceedings a nullity. The principles of English law, as reflected in section 134 of the Criminal Procedure Code Uganda, require that accused persons be properly joined in the same information for a joint trial. The consent of the accused to the irregular procedure does not cure the jurisdictional defect. Accordingly, the convictions were set aside and a retrial was ordered.
Court disposition
conviction_set_aside_and_retrial_ordered
- The convictions are set aside.
- The appellants are to be tried according to law.
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 ABRAHAMS, C. J. (Uganda), Ag. President, LUCIE-SMITH, Ag. C. J. (Kenya), and WEBB, J. (both of Kenya).
REX (Respondent) (Original Prosecutor) $\mathbf{r}$
KRISTOFA MALE S/O NIKODEMU KYONONEKA AND ANOTHER (Appellants) (Original Accused).
Cr. A 69/1934.
- Criminal Procedure Code Uganda, section 134—Two accused tried on two separate informations—Trial a nullity. - Held (11-6-34).-That, where two persons are indicted separately and tried together, the proceedings are a nullity, Rex v. Dennis and Parker (1924), 1 K. B. 867 followed (Kenya Code of Criminal Procedure, section 132).
Appeal from High Court of Uganda.
Turton (Attorney-General, Uganda), for Crówn.
Appellants absent and unrepresented.
$\mathcal{L}_{\text{max}}$
$\mathcal{A} = \{1, \ldots, n\}$
Turton.—Two accused have been tried on two separate informations. It would appear that the trial is a nullity. Rex $v$ . Crane; Rex v. Dennis and Parker.
JUDGMENT.-In this case the two appellants, though committed for trial together for murder, were charged in separate informations. They were however, tried together and convicted. In Crane v. Director of Public Prosecutions (1921), A. C., p. 299, the House of Lords held that, where two persons were indicted separately, one for stealing goods and the other for receiving them. and were tried together, the proceedings were a nullity, and $Rex$ v. Dennis and Parker (1924) 1. K. B. 867, is authority to the same effect, the Court of Criminal Appeal there holding that the consent of the accused to the illegality did not correct the want of jurisdiction.
This case differs from those cases in the facts in that the offence is really one, the appellants being charged with the murder of one and the same person; but we are of opinion that the principles of English law with which the wording of section 134 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Uganda is in conformity is not. to be varied thereby. We therefore set aside the conviction and order the appellants to be tried according to law. $\mathcal{L}^{\mathcal{L}}$
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.