[1927] EACA 30
The court held that maintaining cattle on a farm in excess of the number allowed by contract does not constitute a criminal offence under the Resident Native Labourers' Ordinance. The existence of excess cattle may provide grounds for rescission of the contract between the occupier and the squatter, but it does not...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1927] EACA 30
- Parties
- Appellant: Crown; Respondent: Gatune wa Kamaij
- Court
- East African Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Case Number
- Revision Case No. 138 of 1927
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- conviction quashed
- Judges
- Sheridan, J
- Legal Topics
- Offences Against Property, Resident Labourers Ordinance, Cattle Management, Contractual Limits
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Crown
Appellant
Gatune wa Kamaij
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether maintaining cattle on a farm in excess of the number allowed by contract constitutes a criminal offence under the Resident Native Labourers' Ordinance.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that maintaining cattle on a farm in excess of the number allowed by contract does not constitute a criminal offence under the Resident Native Labourers' Ordinance. The existence of excess cattle may provide grounds for rescission of the contract between the occupier and the squatter, but it does not render the squatter criminally liable. Accordingly, the conviction was quashed and the fine ordered to be refunded.
Court Disposition
conviction quashed
Orders
- The conviction is quashed.
- The fine is to be refunded.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
10 paragraphs
Before SHERIDAN, ;f •.
## CROWN
## GATUNE wa KAMAIJ .
## .1:tflvision C11se 138 / 1 O'..:l7.
The Resident ¥afr•e Labourers' Ordinam,e, section !();-movement and branding of resident natives' cattle.
*Held* : -That there is no such offence as maintaining · cattle **on· a farin** in excess of the number allowed by contract.
In the original case (Criminal Case. 87/1927 in. the Third. Class Court at· \_Fort Hall) the accused was ccnvilted .)f having maintained on a farm cattle 'in excess of the number .allowed. on his contract.
0RDER.-There is no such offence as mainfaining cattle on a. farm in excess of the number allowed by contract. The. fact of having an excess may be a ground for rescission of the contract between· the occupier. and the squatter but it does not , render the latter liable to conviction ..
The conviction is quashed and the fine directed to be refunded.
*v.*