Share
Nottidge and Another v Sandalo (Revision Case 113/1927.) [1927] EACA 34 (1 January 1927)
- Citation
- [1927] EACA 34
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- East African Court of Appeal
- Panel
- Sheridan, J
- Case number
- Revision Case 113/1927.
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- East African Court of Appeal
- Panel
- Sheridan, J
- Case number
- Revision Case 113/1927.
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The sum advanced to the accused was not a single advance on account of a current contract but consisted of amounts given from time to time. Section 53 of the Employment of Natives Ordinance does not permit splitting up such advances to create criminal liability. The rescission of the contract and grant of leave further removed the matter from the scope of criminal law, relegating the employer to civil remedies. The convictions were therefore unsustainable and were quashed.
Court disposition
convictions quashed; accused released
Orders
- The convictions and consequential orders are quashed.
- The accused is ordered to be released.
02
Material facts
Parties
Ashuala s/o Sandalo
DefendantAttorney-General
RespondentAmounts and remedies
- Advance of Wages: KES 79
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Revision / Revision
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the sum advanced to the accused can be split up to bring the case within section 53 of the Employment of Natives Ordinance (Cap. 139).
- 02
Whether the accused's departure from service before working off the advance constitutes a criminal offence under section 53.
- 03
Effect of contract rescission and grant of leave on the employer's remedy.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The employer admitted that the Sh. 79 was made up of amounts advanced to the accused from time to time, not as a single advance on account of a current contract. The rescission of the contract and grant of leave rendered the employer's remedy civil, not criminal.
- Respondent
- The Attorney-General does not wish to support the convictions, implying agreement that the facts do not support a criminal penalty under section 53.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Employment of Natives Ordinance (Cap. 139), section 53
An advance of wages under section 53 must be considered as a whole and not split up to create criminal liability.
- 02
General principles of contract law
Rescission of the employment contract and grant of leave relegates the employer to civil remedies for recovery of sums owing.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The sum advanced to the accused was not a single advance on account of a current contract but consisted of amounts given from time to time. Section 53 of the Employment of Natives Ordinance does not permit splitting up such advances to create criminal liability. The rescission of the contract and grant of leave further removed the matter from the scope of criminal law, relegating the employer to civil remedies. The convictions were therefore unsustainable and were quashed.
Obiter and limits
- The Magistrate's view that the sum could be split up for criminal liability is untenable.
- The employer's remedy after contract rescission is civil, not criminal.
Court disposition
convictions quashed; accused released
- The convictions and consequential orders are quashed.
- The accused is ordered to be released.
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.
MESSRS. NOTTIDGE & ALLEN
Ú.
ASHUALA s/o SANDALO.
Revision Case 113/1927.
Employment of Natives Ordinance (Cap. 139), section 53-penalty on servant leaving service before working off an advance of wages.
Held: That the sum advanced cannot be split up for the purpose of bringing the case within Section 53.
ORDER.—The accused was ill for twenty-one days and thereafter was granted leave; he had been engaged on a thirty-days' contract. As the employer admitted the Sh. 79 was made up of amounts advanced to the accused from time to time. The ingenious view of the Magistrate that this sum can be split up for the purpose of bringing the case within section 53, Cap. 139, is in my opinion untenable. It has to be looked at as a whole and it is clearly not an advance on account of a current contract. Furthermore, the rescission of the contract on the grant of leave had the effect of relegating the employer to a civil action for the recovery of any sum owing by his former servant. $\quad \textbf{The} \quad$ Honourable the Attorney-General does not wish to support the convictions.
The convictions and consequential orders are quashed and the accused ordered to be released.
$105.$
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.