[1927] EACA 28

[1927] EACA 28

The court held that the fact of a servant outstaying his leave does not amount to the offence of departing without lawful excuse from his employer's service with intent not to return, as contemplated by section 48(5) of the Employment of Natives Ordinance. The accused had been granted leave at the time of departure,...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1927] EACA 28
Parties
Applicant: Crown; Respondent: Kaswaka wa Kimanayi
Court
East African Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Number
Revision Case No. 124 of 1927
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Revision
Outcome
conviction_set_aside
Judges
Sheridan, J
Legal Topics
Employment of Natives Ordinance, Unlawful Departure From Service, Leave and Absence, Criminal Liability for Contractual Breach
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Criminal Law Employment of Natives Ordinance Unlawful Departure From Service Leave and Absence Criminal Liability for Contractual Breach

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Crown

Applicant

Kaswaka wa Kimanayi

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Revision / Revision

  1. 1 Does a servant outstaying his leave constitute an offence under section 48(5) of the Employment of Natives Ordinance?
  2. 2 Is the omission to return at the expiry of leave covered under section 47(2)?
  3. 3 Was the advance of Sh. 62 a loan or an advance on a current contract, and does its non-payment attract penalties under the Ordinance?

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the fact of a servant outstaying his leave does not amount to the offence of departing without lawful excuse from his employer's service with intent not to return, as contemplated by section 48(5) of the Employment of Natives Ordinance. The accused had been granted leave at the time of departure, and any omission to return at the expiry of leave may be considered under section 47(2), not section 48(5). Furthermore, the advance of Sh. 62 was deemed a loan rather than an advance on a current contract, and its non-payment does not attract the penalties provided by the Ordinance. The conviction was set aside due to these substantive and procedural defects, including an...

Court Disposition

conviction_set_aside

Orders

  • The conviction under section 48(5) of the Employment of Natives Ordinance is set aside.