[1950] EACA 87
The court held that, following the amendment to the Motor Vehicles Insurance (Third Party Risks) Ordinance by Ordinance XXVII of 1949, the decision to disqualify an individual from holding a certificate of competency is left to the discretion of the court and is not mandatory upon conviction. The appellant's failure...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1950] EACA 87
- Parties
- Appellant: Habib Javer; Respondent: Rex
- Court
- East African Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal No. 249 of 1950
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Judges
- Nihill, C.J, Thacker J
- Legal Topics
- Traffic Offences, Driving Without Certificate, Driving Without Insurance, Sentencing Discretion
- 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
Habib Javer
Appellant
Rex
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court is required to disqualify the appellant from holding a certificate of competency for 12 months upon conviction for driving without a valid certificate and without insurance.
- 2 Whether the Magistrate had discretion to refrain from imposing disqualification after the 1949 amendment.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that, following the amendment to the Motor Vehicles Insurance (Third Party Risks) Ordinance by Ordinance XXVII of 1949, the decision to disqualify an individual from holding a certificate of competency is left to the discretion of the court and is not mandatory upon conviction. The appellant's failure to obtain a certificate of competency was due to his own negligence, and the fine imposed was deemed an appropriate penalty. The Magistrate was not required to disqualify the appellant in the absence of special reasons, and the appeal against sentence was therefore dismissed.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed.
- The sentence of fine on each count is upheld.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
18 paragraphs
## APPELLATE CRIMINAL
#### Before SIR BARCLAY NIHILL, C. J., and THACKER, J.
### HABIB JAVER, Appellant (Original Accused)
ν
# REX, Respondent (Original Prosecutor) Criminal Appeal No. 249 of 1950
### (Appeal from the decision of Resident Magistrate's Court at Nyeri-A. C. Harrison, Esq.)
Traffic Ordinance, 1928, section 12 (1)—Driving without valid certificate of competency—Motor Vehicles Insurance (Third Party Risks) Ordinance, 1945 -Driving an uninsured car-Disqualification from holding certificate of competency—Third Party Risks (Amendment) Ordinance, XXVII of 1949-Discretion of Court.
Habib Javer, accused, pleaded guilty to two charges, the first, under Traffic Ordinance, 1928, section 12 (1), of driving a car without a valid certificate of competency, and the second, under section 4 (1), Motor Vehicles Insurance (Third Party Risks) Ordinance, 1945, of driving a car without a valid policy of insurance covering third party risks. He was convicted on his pleas, and sentenced to pay a fine on each count. On admission of the appeal, it was questioned whether the learned Magistrate had discretion, except for special reasons, to refrain from disqualifying the appellant from holding a certificate of competency for a period of 12 months.
Held (28-8-50).—(i) That the absence of a certificate of competency was due to the negligence of the appellant.
(ii) That the amendment of the Motor Vehicles Insurance (Third Party Risks) Ordinance, by Ordinance XXVII of 1949, left it to the discretion of the Court to disqualify from holding a certificate of competency, and disqualification does not follow automatically on conviction.
Appeal dismissed.
Appellant absent, unrepresented.
Templeton, Crown Counsel, for the Crown.
JUDGMENT.—This is an appeal against sentence only passed against the appellant on conviction of an offence-
(1) against the Traffic Ordinance; and
(2) against the Motor Vehicles Insurance (Third Party Risks) Ordinance.
As regards the first offence, according to the appellant's Memorandum of Appeal, had he taken the trouble to do so he could have obtained a valid certificate of competency to drive the particular type of vehicle he was then driving without such certificate had he made application to the police. Even if this be the case we do not regard the fine imposed as being anything more than a just penalty for his negligence in not doing so. As regards the second offence, the learned Judge who admitted this appeal to hearing raises the point that the learned Magistrate had no discretion, except for special reasons, to refrain from disqualifying the appellant from holding a certificate of competency for a period of 12 months from the date of conviction. This was the position up to the recent amendment of the Third Party Risks Ordinance by Ordinance No. 27 of 1949. The matter is now left to the discretion of the Court and disqualification does not follow automatically on conviction.
This appeal is dismissed.