REX
V.
PETER OTUBU

 KINGDON, C.J., NIGERIA, BUTLER LLOYD AND FRANCIS, JJ. In this case the appellant was a witness in a criminal case, and at the close of the trial was called up by the Court to show cause why he should not be committed to prison for contempt of Court, the presiding Judge adding “as I am satisfied he has been guilty of perjury”. But the Judge did not set out the assignment of perjury or, so far as the record shows, tell the appellant of what the perjury consisted. We have examined the record and are unable to ascertain what the accusation is or even what the gist of it is. In answer to the request to show cause the appellant made a plea ad misericordiam.

The learned trial Judge acted under section 41 of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance. Somewhat similar cases under similar sections have been considered at various times. The most important is that of Chang Hangkin and others v. Piggot and another ([ 1909] A.C. 312) in which the Privy Council rescinded the committal order because the appel…