Download

Uganda Judgment

East African Court of Appeal

Rex v Odima (Criminal Appeal No. 77 of 1941) [1941] EACA 54 (1 January 1941)

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 had no right of appeal to the Court of Appeal for Eastern Africa because section 307 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, which might have provided such a right, was repealed by section 29 (2) of the Buganda Courts Ordinance, 1940. Furthermore, even before the repeal, there was no right of appeal to this Court on the ground of severity of sentence, as explicitly stated in section 320 of Cap. 41. The legislative changes removed any jurisdiction the Court might have had to entertain the appeal, and the appellant's arguments based on previous statutory provisions were rendered moot by the repeal.

Court disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.

02

Material facts

Parties

Juliyo Odima

Appellant Counsel: Appellant in person

Rex

Respondent Counsel: McKisack, Crown Counsel

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Criminal Appeal / Appeal From High Court

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The appellant argued that he was entitled to appeal to the Court of Appeal for Eastern Africa under section 5 of the Native Courts in Buganda Proclamation, challenging the increased sentence imposed by the Uganda High Court.
Respondent
The Crown, represented by McKisack, contended that the right of appeal had been removed by the repeal of section 307 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code through section 29 (2) of the Buganda Courts Ordinance, 1940, and that no appeal lay to this Court on the ground of severity of sentence under section 320 of Cap. 41.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Section 29 (2), Buganda Courts Ordinance, 1940; Section 307 (3), Criminal Procedure Code (Cap. 41)

    Repeal of statutory provision removes any right of appeal previously available under that provision.

  2. 02

    Section 320, Criminal Procedure Code (Cap. 41)

    No right of appeal exists to the Court of Appeal for Eastern Africa on the ground of severity of sentence.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The Court held that the appellant had no right of appeal to the Court of Appeal for Eastern Africa because section 307 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, which might have provided such a right, was repealed by section 29 (2) of the Buganda Courts Ordinance, 1940. Furthermore, even before the repeal, there was no right of appeal to this Court on the ground of severity of sentence, as explicitly stated in section 320 of Cap. 41. The legislative changes removed any jurisdiction the Court might have had to entertain the appeal, and the appellant's arguments based on previous statutory provisions were rendered moot by the repeal.

Court disposition

appeal dismissed

  • The appeal is 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

[1941] EACA 54

COURT OF APPEAL FOR EASTERN AI

Before SIR JOSEPH SHERIDAN, C. J. (Kenya), SIR HENRY WE and GAMBLE, J. (Uganda)

REX, Respondent

$\overline{v}$ .

JULIYO ODIMA, Appellant

Criminal Appeal No. 77 of 1941

Appeal from decision of H. M. High Court of Uganda.

- Criminal Law-Right of appeal-Appeal from order of Uganda High Court increasing sentences imposed by the Lukiko Court-Uganda Criminal Procedure Code (Cap. 41), sections 307 and 320-Buganda Courts Ordinance, 1940 (No. 4 of 1940), section 29 (2). - Held $(14-5-41)$ .-(1) That the repeal of section 307 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code by section 29 (2) of the Buganda Courts Ordinance, 1940, took away any right of appeal to the Court of Appeal for Eastern Africa which might have existed under the Native Courts in Buganda Proclamation.

(2) That in any case there was never any right of appeal to this Court on the ground of severity of sentence.

Appellant in person.

McKisack, Crown Counsel, for the Crown.

JUDGMENT (delivered by SIR JOSEPH SHERIDAN, C. J.).—The appellant has no right of appeal to this Court. Any appeal he may have had under section 5 of the Native Courts in Buganda Proclamation has been taken away by the repeal of section 307 (3) of Cap. 41 by section 29 (2) of Ordinance 4 of 1940. And even prior to the 1st September, 1940, the date on which Ordinance 4 of 1940 came into force, the appellant would not have had a right of appeal to this Court on the ground of severity of sentence (S. 320, Cap. 41).

- The appeal is 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.

Uganda Criminal Procedure Code (Cap. 41), sections 307 and 320

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Buganda Courts Ordinance, 1940 (No. 4 of 1940), section 29 (2)

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Native Courts in Buganda Proclamation, section 5

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.