Share
Crown v Getari wa Kachuqu (Revision Case No. 22 of 1927) [1927] EACA 20 (1 January 1927)
- Citation
- [1927] EACA 20
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- East African Court of Appeal
- Panel
- Sheridan, J
- Case number
- Revision Case No. 22 of 1927
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- East African Court of Appeal
- Panel
- Sheridan, J
- Case number
- Revision Case No. 22 of 1927
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court held that the statutory definition of 'servant' under section 2 of the Employment of Natives Ordinance does not include clerks. Since the accused was employed as a clerk, he does not fall within the scope of persons regulated by the Ordinance for the purposes of the conviction. The conviction was therefore set aside and the fine ordered to be repaid.
Court disposition
conviction set aside
Orders
- The conviction is set aside.
- The fine ordered to be repaid to the accused.
02
Material facts
Parties
Crown
RespondentGetari wa Kachuqu
Appellant03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Revision / Judgment
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
Whether a clerk falls within the definition of 'servant' under section 2 of the Employment of Natives Ordinance (Cap. 139).
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The accused was employed as a clerk and does not fall within the statutory definition of 'servant' under the Employment of Natives Ordinance (Cap. 139).
- Respondent
- The prosecution contended that the accused, being employed, should be considered a servant under the Ordinance.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Employment of Natives Ordinance (Cap. 139), section 2
A clerk is not a servant as defined by section 2 of the Employment of Natives Ordinance (Cap. 139).
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court held that the statutory definition of 'servant' under section 2 of the Employment of Natives Ordinance does not include clerks. Since the accused was employed as a clerk, he does not fall within the scope of persons regulated by the Ordinance for the purposes of the conviction. The conviction was therefore set aside and the fine ordered to be repaid.
Obiter and limits
- A similar order was made by Sheridan, J., in Revision Case No. 43/1927.
Court disposition
conviction set aside
- The conviction is set aside.
- The fine ordered to be repaid to the accused.
Source and reliance status
East African Court of Appeal
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
East African Court of Appeal
Judgment
CRIMINAL REVISION.
Before SHERIDAN, J.
CROWN
$\boldsymbol{v}$ .
GETARI wa KACHUQU. Revision Case $22/1927$ .
Employment of Natives Ordinance (Cap. 139), section 2definition of servant.
$Held$ :—That a clerk is not a servant as defined in Section 2.
ORDER.-The evidence in this case shows the accused to have been employed as a clerk. A clerk does not come within the definition of servant in the Employment of Natives Ordinance (Cap. 139, section 2, Laws of Kenya).
The conviction is therefore set aside and the fine ordered to be repaid.
Note.-A similar Order was made by Sheridan, J., in Revision Case No. 43/1927.
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.