[1927] EACA 19
The court held that the accused, acting as a clerical overseer in charge of an estate, did not undertake to work as a labourer or herdsman and therefore did not fall within the definition of 'servant' under section 2 of the Employment of Natives Ordinance (Cap. 139). Consequently, the statutory provisions of Cap....
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1927] EACA 19
- Parties
- Applicant: Crown; Respondent: Johk Muganes s/o Wachira
- Court
- East African Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Case Number
- Revision Case No. 20A of 1927
- Procedural Posture
- Revision Case / Judgment
- Outcome
- order_set_aside
- Judges
- Pickering J
- Legal Topics
- Definition of Servant, Employment Contract, Statutory Interpretation
- 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
Applicant
Johk Muganes s/o Wachira
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Revision Case / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether a clerical overseer in charge of an estate qualifies as a 'servant' under section 2 of the Employment of Natives Ordinance (Cap. 139).
- 2 Whether the provisions of Cap. 139 apply to the contract entered into by the accused.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the accused, acting as a clerical overseer in charge of an estate, did not undertake to work as a labourer or herdsman and therefore did not fall within the definition of 'servant' under section 2 of the Employment of Natives Ordinance (Cap. 139). Consequently, the statutory provisions of Cap. 139 did not apply to his contract of service, which was instead governed by common law. The Magistrate's order authorising the complainant to withhold Sh. 15 was invalid as section 45(1)(a) of the Ordinance was inapplicable.
Court Disposition
order_set_aside
Orders
- The order authorising the complainant to withhold Sh. 15 is invalid and is set aside.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
7 paragraphs
## Before PICKERING, J.
## CROWN
## *v.*
## JOHK MUGANES s/o WACHIRA. · Revision Case 20A/1927.
Employment of Natives Ordinance (Cap. 139), section 2-definition of servant.
*Held* :-That a clerical overseer in charge of an estate is not a. servant as defined in Section Z. · ·
0RDER.-In his Judgment the Magistrate refe1s to the accused as " a Kikuyu clerk ". It would appear that the llccused in fact acted as a kind of clerical overseer having practically the responsible position of being in charge \_of the estate. Visits for supervision were made by a European periodically. It would seem that during this case the Magist,rate lost sigitt of the definition of servant to be found in Cap 139, section 2. Under the contract entered into by the accuoed he did•· not, in my opinion undertake to work as a labourer or as a herdsman, etc. To this contract of service· the· provisions of Cap. 139 had no application. The employ11Jent was simply a common law contract. The Magistrate would seem to have acted under section 45 (1) (a) of the Ordinance. For the reasons given t.hat section h~d no application and the order authorising the complainant to ~it.hhold -Sh. 15 is invalid and is set aside.