1922, 13th July. 98 action ig not based on non-delivery, but on breach of warranty, the governing principle must be, the same, and the question where the breach occurred is tho factor in deciding as to whether this Court has jurisdiction. In order to arrive at-the conclusion as to where the breach haz taken place the Court must look at all the eireumstances. ‘The contract was made in Kenya by tho acceptance of tho plaintiff's offer. Payment was made to the defendants in Kenya. Under Section 91 of the Indian Contract Act delivery of goods to a carrier (in this case the Uganda Railway) Has the same effect as delivery to the buyer. The breach of warranty alleged is that the spare wheels did not fit the lorry; the warranty (if any) was made in Kenya and I therefore hold that, the breach of warranty complained of occurred in Kenya, at the latest, at the time when the lorry was delivered to the Uganda Railway for conveyance to the plaintiff. I therefore hold that there was no breach of warranty within the jurisdiction and that consequently this Court has no jurisdiction in the suit and it is accordingly dismissed with costs. CRIMINAL REVISION. e No. 48 or 1922. Bejore Chief Justice Griffin. Rex vs. Yowast K. Patto anp Two Orners. Criminal Law—Indian Penal Code Section 124s— Sedition—Eaoiting Hatred and Diseffection— Motive—Native Law. In a prosecution for exciting hatred and contempt against the Native Government it is no justification that the accused wore actuated by patriotic feelings and only desired to improve the condition of the country. This was an application for a revision of a judgment of the Lukiko Court. The accused wore thres native hospital drossers employed at Namirembe Hospital who wrote and sont to the Secretary of the Young Baganda Association a letter containing accusations of immorality and worthlessness against the Kobaka and asking the Association to take steps to have him deposed and a better king pub in his place. For99 this they were prosectited before the Lukiko Court on complaint _ of the Lukiko (deliberative assembly). The Couft found that the letter had been published and that it was deliberately abusive and calculated to bring the Kabaka into contempt and undermine his authority over his subjects. The judgment includes the following statement of Native “Law:—‘‘It is well known in the Kingdom of Buganda that this is an absolute ‘taboo, and the Kabaka is never abused, further in the old days no one would even attempt to speak or even to make any sign which would. be calculated to be abusive to the Kabaka and if found out, he would be instantly killed.” The accused were therefore convicted under Section 124a of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to three years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Shs. 200. Tho accused thereupon petitioned the High Court for revision. Mr. Priestly for the petitioners. Mr. Hogg (Attorney General) for Crown. Grirsix, C. J.:—Mr, Priestly who appeared for the three prisoners lias raised three points in his argument: (1) That thero was now no such offence as sedition in native law; (2) That the proceedings were irregular; (3) That the accused though foolish in writing as they did to the Young Baganda Association were actuated by love of their country and had no desire to excite disaffection towards the Kabaka as the head of the Native Government and that their letter was not calculated to excite sedition. As to the first point, the Omulamuzi has said in his judg- ment that in the old days no one could attempt to speak or even to make any sign which would be abusive to the Kabaka, and if found out he would instantly be killed. Apart altogether from the provisions of the Indian Penal Code on sedition, there can be no doubt that sedition is an offence against and punishable by every Government that has ever existed. As to the irregularity of the proceedings, the point has been taken that no prosecutor appeared. The charge is in the name of the Lukiko, I have made inquiries and find that the ordinary procedure is for the complainant to prosecute, but that frequently there is no individual prosecutor in Court. Obviously in this case where the person aggrieved is the Kabaka ho could nob appear in person to prosscute, and the case was accordingly ni 100 dealt with by questions put by the Court ‘itself. The ‘procedure of the Lukiko Court is not the same as in a British Court, but as long as the procedure of the Lukiko Court admits of substantial justice being done, there are no grounds for setting aside a decision of that Court for irregularity. In this case the three prisoners admitted having signed the letter which they sent to the Young Baganda Associntion, and were given an opportunity of explaining the reason for writing the letter and sending it to the Association. They were foolish enough to refuse the opportunity given them—all three prisoners refused one after another—and I shall not allow them to say now that they had been denied justice through not having had an opportunity of placing their ense before the Lukiko Court. I come now to Mr. Priestly's third ground, which is, briefly, that the convietion was wrong because there was no sedition intended, that the letter was written out of patriotism and to improve the condition of the Kingdom of Buganda. Before considering the intent I have to decide whether the words used were seditious, that is caloulated to excite disaffection to the Kabaka as head of the Native Government of Ugands. The letter contains attacks upon the private life of the Kabaka, but throughout the letter there are statements to the effect that the Kabaka wishes to prevent his Kingdom from progressing, that it is not-right to be ruled by a Kabaka about whom people are murmuring, that the laws made and signed by him have no force in the country, are despised by the people and are only obeyed by sheer force, that the Kabaka is worthless and does not want his country to progress. These statements are all subversive of the authority of the Kabaka as head of the Government and calculated to excite disaffection, and, consequently, aré seditious. Mr, Priestly has pressed upon me the view that the letter was written through affection for the Kabaka and ou of sheer patriotism. The rules of law and of common sense is that a man must be taken to intend the natural and probable consequences of his act, and if, on reading ‘through the letter, it appears that the reasonable and natural and probable effect on the minds of the people to whom it was addressed was to excite disaffection, then it is justifiable to say that the letter was written with that intent. I have no hesitation in holding that the reasonable, natural and probable offect of the letter was to excite disaffection towards the Kabaka, and that therefore the letter was written with seditious intent,i 101 cd and that the prisoners before me were properly gonvicted of sedition. If the spirit which animated the writers had been the patriotic desire to reform abuses the proper course was to have written to the Kabuka himself or to his Ministers and not to drag into open daylight, with the greatest publicity, the evils which they sought to have reformed. Tue Cuwr Juszice then addressed the prisoners :— Writing as you did to the Young Baganda Association you acted in a manner which showed an entire lack of respect for the Kabaka and his Government und,did an act not of true patriotism but an act calculated to subvert and bring into disrespect your own Native Government. Instead of doing a service to Uganda you have done it an injury. Tf you were true lovers of your Kingdom you would not have done what you have done. You have done much harm, and it is fortunate that the consequences of your conduct have not been more strious. The conviction is upheld. Tuk Arrorney Gunerat then read a letter from His Highness the Kabaka asking that the prisoners be pardoned. Tne Cmer Justice:—Having regard to the letter from H. H. the Kabaka the sentence of the Omulamuzi is reduced lo imprisonment from the date of sentence by him to the rising of this Court, and the sentence of fine will not be enforced. ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION. No. 79 ov 1922. Before Mr. Justice Guthrie Smith, Pazatpin Mrransux vs. Smroxt Luts. Native Land Tenurc—Butaka Land—Uganda Agreement 1900 para. 15. Any portion of land in Buganda which has been held as Butaka of one of the clans from time immemorial and has been allotted under the Uganda Agreement, 1900, to a member of the clan will be regarded as subject to the customary rights uf all the members of the clan and cannot be sold. 1922, Lith Jniy,