Case No.:

AC-CR-REV-290-1962

Court:

The High Court of Justice

Issue No.:

1962

Principles

·  Road Traffic—Overtaking—Road Traffic Act, s. 21—Two cars stopped parallel at intersection—Statute not applicable

·  Road Traffic—Turning——Double track road—Precedence of left car for left turn

Held: (i) when two vehicles stop parallel at a stop sign in a double track road and both start simultaneously to turn into the road on the left. Road Traffic Act 1962, S. 21, dealing with “overtaking” does not apply because it requires:
(a) Two vehicles traveling in the same direction
(b) One vehicle ahead of the other
(c) the vehicle behind desiring to pass the one in front.

(ii) Where a road is double-track, or wide enough to allow parallel traffic without obstruction of oncoming traffic,
(a) the right lane at intersections should “be made avaliable only to traffic proceeding straight ahead or intending to turn to the right,” and
(b) any car in the right lane wanting to turn left must give precedence to all cars in the left lane that are intended to proceed ahead or turn left.

Judgment

(CRIMINAL REVISION)

SUDAN GOVERNMENT V. TORE NORDEN

AC-CR-REV-290-1962

Babiker Awadalla J., by authority of the Chief Justice. December 3, 1962: —By authority of the Honourable Chief Justice, I refuse confirmation of finding and hereby order the refund of the fine to applicant.

I entirely uphold the contention of applicant that the Road Traffic Act 1962, S. 21, is completely irrelevant. The second leg to that section deals with “overtaking” which means that there must be:

(a) Two vehicles traveling in the same direction,

(b) In such circumstances that one of them is ahead of the other, and

(c) The one behind wants to pass the one in front.

In the present case, the evidence for the prosecution discloses that both cars were stationary at a traffic light sign, and both started simultaneously to swerve into the road on the left. The only section of the Road Traffic Act relevant to the case is therefore section 22, and in order to bring applicant within the operation of that section the prosecution has to prove that applicant “drove a vehicle on a road without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road.” Having regard to the facts of the present case, I am of opinion that of the two persons involved in this accident it was certainly the driver of the bus and not applicant who contravened the provisions of the section referred to. I cannot see how the bus driver in this case can claim to have precedence over another vehicle stopping at a lane closest to the left turn, which both cars were intending to make. Although there is no evidence on the point, I gather from the position of the two cars that applicant was the first to stop at the traffic light, and that the bus driver arrived later and stopped on the right side. The common sense rule that s’ prevent a blocking of traffic in cases of this sort is that cars not intending to proceed ahead should stop on the side of the road closest t that into which they intend to turn. If there is already a car stopping ahead at that side, then the second car should stop behind and not by the side of that car, and so on. According to this rule, the space on the right side would be made available only to traffic proceeding straight ahead or intending to turn to the right side. This rule in my view applies both to traffic light-stops and halt signs when the road is a double track road or else is wide enough to allow of cars stopping parallel to each other without obstructing traffic coming from the opposite direction or entering from intersecting roads. If the road is not spacious enough to allow of more than two cars traveling at the same time in opposite directions (as most of the streets of Khartoum are) then stopping at traffic lights and halt signs should only be confined to the near side of the road. This appears to be the only rule, which would allow of an even flow of traffic in situations similar to the one in hand.

I think that in the present case, the driver of the bus ought to have given precedence not only to applicant but to all other cars intending to proceed ahead or enter the road on the left side.