Recent Posts

6/recent/ticker-posts

R. v. Abdallahamid s/o Daleyusufu, Crim. Rev. 74-D-67; 23/6/67; Georges, C.J.



R. v. Abdallahamid s/o Daleyusufu, Crim. Rev. 74-D-67; 23/6/67; Georges, C.J.

The surety signed a bond to produce the accused. Accused did not appear on the specified day and, after further proceedings, the amount of the bond was forfeited. Subsequently, the surety succeeded after extensive efforts in producing the accused. Accused was re-arrested but later escaped.

            Held: (1) Section 132 of the Criminal Procedure Code grants the power to review the forfeiture either by way of revision or appeal. (2) Although the surety was remiss in failing to produce the accused at the specified time, the whole sum due would not have been forfeited if the facts now before the Court had been known. The Court stated, obiter: It is preferable that bonds should not be forfeited too quickly if the accused fails to appear. It is usually best to adjourn the proceedings to allow the surety some time to find the accused if he thinks he can succeed, and the fact that

The accused is later produced can be taken into account in deciding whether there should be forfeiture. The forfeiture was reduced to Shs. 1,000/- of the Shs. 4,000/- due on the bond.

Post a Comment

0 Comments