19820824 TZHC Mwanza

IN THE HIGH COURT OP TANZANIA AT IVPIIAI'TZA /

APPELLATE JURISDICTION HIGH COURT CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 294 OP 1 97( ORIGINAL CRIMINAL CASE NO. 83 OP 1 9* )P THE DISTRICT COURT OF BUXOBA DISTRfQWjN,. AT BUICOBA s Before: J. Mkate, Esq., Résident Magistrate JOHNIIABEL ... . •... . . . . .APPELL&NT

VERSUS THE REU?UBLICG • . . . . . . . RESPONDENT CHARGE: (i) Failure to prepare or cause to be prepared record of oral contract of service and issue a copy of sanie to his employee contrary to Section 35(1)(4). Failure to keep records of wages dueto the employee contrary to Section 17(1)(3) Failure to keep himself insured against any liability he might have incurred in respect of his employee contrary to Section 25(1)(2) and; Failure to pay statutory minimum wages to his employee contrary to Section 12(2). J1JDGELThNT MAKAME,- J. - The Republic was unable to support the convictions of the appellant for some four labour offences. The learned State Attomy took the view that the evidence of employment itself was not so clear.. The complainant OMARI A}R told the trial court that he and the appellant entered into an oral contract under which he, ithmed, worked for the appellant from September, 1969 until the appellant terii.Lnated his employment, without reason or notice, on 25/12/69.. The appellant had been paying him at the rate of shs. 25/— per month A witness for the Prosecution, POW O 2, ALKJiDI All, told the lower court that he took P,W.1 to the appellantts to assist the appellant, not to be employed by him. It was this POW.2, a relative of P.W.1, who brought P.W.1 and the appellant together and he was the one independent witness vtho would 1ow what for. .. . . . . . ./

2. -2- The rest of the ôontroversy was as to when the complainant first arrived at the appellant's, which was neither here nor there really, the important thing being what. he was there as. I have sympathy for the learned State Attorney's view that the issue of employment had not clearly been proved. The evidence was inconclusive. The appeal is therefore allowed The convictions are accordingly quashed and the sentences are set aside', In the files there is no indication as to whether the appellant did in fact pay the fine# If he did pay the shs. 800/—, and the shs.388/70 'rars, the same should be refunded to him. C.. P. (L. M DAR ES SALAM JUDGE. AUGtJ5T 24 9 1982. .'*