[1937] EACA 193

[1937] EACA 193

The court held that Rule 12 of the Native Produce Improvement and Inspection Rules, 1936, was ultra vires because it delegated to the Director of Agriculture the power to specify the areas to which the inspection rules would apply, contrary to the enabling provision in the Crop Production and Live Stock Ordinance, 1926. The Ordinance required that the Governor in Council himself name the areas in the rules, and the Interpretation Ordinance expressly prohibited delegation of rule-making power. Since Rule 12 did not comply with these statutory requirements, any conviction based on it could not stand. The conviction of the applicant was therefore quashed and any fine paid was ordered to be...

Citation
[1937] EACA 193
Parties
Respondent: Rex; Applicant: Jan Mohammed
Court
East African Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Judgment Date
1 January 1937
Case Number
Cr. Rev. Case No. 29/1937
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Judgment
Outcome
conviction quashed
Judges
Lucie-Smith Ag CJ (Kenya), Webb, J
Legal Topics
Ultra Vires Rules, Delegation of Rule Making Power, Inspection of Agricultural Produce
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Administrative Law Ultra Vires Rules Delegation of Rule Making Power Inspection of Agricultural Produce

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rex

Respondent

Jan Mohammed

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Revision / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Rule 12 of the Native Produce Improvement and Inspection Rules, 1936, is ultra vires the enabling Ordinance.
  2. 2 Whether the Governor in Council could delegate rule-making power to the Director of Agriculture under the Crop Production and Live Stock Ordinance, 1926.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that Rule 12 of the Native Produce Improvement and Inspection Rules, 1936, was ultra vires because it delegated to the Director of Agriculture the power to specify the areas to which the inspection rules would apply, contrary to the enabling provision in the Crop Production and Live Stock Ordinance, 1926. The Ordinance required that the Governor in Council himself name the areas in the rules, and the Interpretation Ordinance expressly prohibited delegation of rule-making power. Since Rule 12 did not comply with these statutory requirements, any conviction based on it could not stand. The conviction of the applicant was therefore quashed and any fine paid was ordered to be...

Court Disposition

conviction quashed

Orders

  • The conviction is quashed.
  • Any fine paid by the applicant is to be refunded.