Simon Joseph s/o Magangira v. R., Crim. App. 498-M-68, 1/11/68, Seaton J.

 

Simon Joseph s/o Magangira v. R., Crim. App. 498-M-68, 1/11/68, Seaton J.

Accused pleaded guilty to corrupt solicitation of money c/s 3(1), Prevention of corruption Ordinance, Cap. 400. Thereupon a statement of facts setting out the particulars of the charge was read, and the accused admitted to the facts as outlined.

            Held: The Court found that the statement of facts read out to the accused was “either meaningless or indicates a set of circumstances that do not support the is not a statutory requirement but it is the “invariable practice” that such a statement is read to the accused. If accused denies the truth of the statement of facts, or makes an ambiguous reply, a plea of not guilty should be entered and the case should proceed to trial. [Citing Rex v. Mwasambanga s/o Lyakumba, 1 T.L.R. 82] Because of the confusion in the statement of facts here, accused could not with comprehension have pleaded guilty to them. The trial court should consequently have entered a plea of not guilty and proceeded to hear the case. Conviction quashed.