Share
Rex v Mkisii (Cr. Rev. Case No. 102/1937) [1937] EACA 194 (1 January 1937)
- Citation
- [1937] EACA 194
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- East African Court of Appeal
- Panel
- Lane, Ag. J, Sheridan CJ
- Case number
- Cr. Rev. Case No. 102/1937
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- East African Court of Appeal
- Panel
- Lane, Ag. J, Sheridan CJ
- Case number
- Cr. Rev. Case No. 102/1937
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court held that the subordinate court of the second class possessed jurisdiction under section 10 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code to try the accused for defilement under section 128 (1) of the Penal Code. The existence of jurisdiction was further supported by previous cases where sentences under section 128 (1) were confirmed by the higher court, thereby tacitly acknowledging the subordinate court's authority. The accused's admission of guilt and absence of challenge to jurisdiction reinforced the decision to confirm the sentence.
Court disposition
sentence confirmed
Orders
- The sentence of one year imprisonment with hard labour is confirmed to run from the date of conviction.
02
Material facts
Parties
Rex
Applicant Counsel: Phillips, Ag. Crown CounselMacharara s/o Sakagwa Mkisii
RespondentAmounts and remedies
- Imprisonment Term Years: 1
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Revision / Judgment
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the subordinate court of the second class had jurisdiction to try a native accused under section 128 (1) of the Penal Code.
- 02
Whether section 10 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code restricts such jurisdiction.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The Crown submits that the subordinate court had jurisdiction under section 10 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code to try the accused for defilement under section 128 (1) of the Penal Code. Previous confirmations of sentences by this Court under the same section support this position.
- Respondent
- The accused admitted guilt and did not contest jurisdiction. No substantive argument was advanced against the court's power to try the case.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Criminal Procedure Code, section 10 (1); Penal Code, section 128 (1)
Subordinate courts of the second class have jurisdiction to try offences under section 128 (1) of the Penal Code, including cases involving native accused.
- 02
Judicial precedent as referenced in the judgment
Tacit recognition of jurisdiction is established by prior confirmations of sentences under the relevant Penal Code section.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court held that the subordinate court of the second class possessed jurisdiction under section 10 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code to try the accused for defilement under section 128 (1) of the Penal Code. The existence of jurisdiction was further supported by previous cases where sentences under section 128 (1) were confirmed by the higher court, thereby tacitly acknowledging the subordinate court's authority. The accused's admission of guilt and absence of challenge to jurisdiction reinforced the decision to confirm the sentence.
Obiter and limits
- There are many cases recorded where this Court by confirming sentences passed under section 128 (1) has tacitly recognized the existence of such jurisdiction.
Court disposition
sentence confirmed
- The sentence of one year imprisonment with hard labour is confirmed to run from the date of conviction.
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
CRIMINAL REVISION
BEFORE SIR JOSEPH SHERIDAN, C. J. AND LANE, AG. J.
REX (Prosecutor)
ν.
MACHARARA s/o SAKAGWA MKISII, Accused
Cr. Rev. Case No. 102/1937
Jurisdiction—Subordinate Court—Defilement—Penal Code, section 128 Criminal Procedure Code, section 10 (1).
The accused, a native, was tried, convicted and sentenced to imprisonment with hard labour for one year by the subordinate court of the second class at Kipini on a charge of defiling a girl under the age of sixteen contra section 128 of the Penal Code.
Held (23-2-37).—That the Court had jurisdiction under section 10 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Phillips, Ag. Crown Counsel for the Crown.
JUDGMENT (delivered by Sir Joseph Sheridan, C. J.).—The point submitted to us in revision is whether the magistrate had power to try a case, the accused being a native, under section 128 (1) Penal Code, regard being had to section 10 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. We are left in no doubt as to his having jurisdiction and there are many cases recorded where this Court by confirming sentences passed under section 128 (1) has tacitly recognized the existence of such jurisdiction. The accused has admitted his guilt in the present case and the sentence is therefore confirmed, to run from the date of the conviction.
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.