Share
Singh v Crown (Cr. App. 12/1927.) [1927] EACA 39 (1 January 1927)
- Citation
- [1927] EACA 39
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- East African Court of Appeal
- Panel
- Pickering J, Sheridan, J
- Case number
- Cr. App. 12/1927.
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- East African Court of Appeal
- Panel
- Pickering J, Sheridan, J
- Case number
- Cr. App. 12/1927.
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court held that the Employment of Natives Ordinance applies only to employment relationships where the duties performed fall within the specific categories listed in section 2 or are of a similar nature. In Criminal Appeal No. 12, the appellant's work as a recruiter did not correspond to any of the enumerated categories, and thus he was not a 'servant' under the Ordinance. In Criminal Appeal No. 11, the evidence indicated that the respondent drove a motor lorry or bus for trade purposes, not as a domestic servant ministering to the personal needs of the employer or his family. The Magistrate erred by applying the Ordinance without sufficient grounds, rendering the proceedings and orders invalid. The appeals were allowed, and the judgments and sentences set aside.
Court disposition
appeal_allowed
Orders
- All orders and findings made by the Magistrate under the Employment of Natives Ordinance are revoked.
- Judgments and sentences against the appellants are set aside.
02
Material facts
Parties
Juma Munyama
AppellantE. R. Driver
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether a native employed as a recruiter is a 'servant' within the meaning of section 2 of the Employment of Natives Ordinance.
- 02
Whether a native employed as a driver of a motor lorry or bus for trade purposes is a 'servant' as defined in the Ordinance.
- 03
Whether the Magistrate erred in applying the Employment of Natives Ordinance to the appellants' employment situations.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The appellant argued that his employment as a recruiter and the respondent's employment as a motor vehicle driver did not fall within the categories of 'servant' as defined by section 2 of the Employment of Natives Ordinance. He contended that the duties performed were not of a nature similar to those listed in the Ordinance, and therefore, the statutory rights and liabilities should not apply.
- Respondent
- The respondent maintained that the appellants were employed under contracts of service and that the Employment of Natives Ordinance was applicable to their employment. He argued that the duties performed were sufficiently similar to those described in section 2, justifying the application of the Ordinance and the Magistrate's orders.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Employment of Natives Ordinance (Cap. 139), section 2
A person is only a 'servant' under the Employment of Natives Ordinance if employed to perform duties specifically enumerated or of a like nature to those listed in section 2.
- 02
In re Jackson (1923, 2 Ch. 369), Warrington, L.J.
The meaning of 'domestic servant' should be interpreted as one who ministers to the wants and comforts of the employer and his family.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court held that the Employment of Natives Ordinance applies only to employment relationships where the duties performed fall within the specific categories listed in section 2 or are of a similar nature. In Criminal Appeal No. 12, the appellant's work as a recruiter did not correspond to any of the enumerated categories, and thus he was not a 'servant' under the Ordinance. In Criminal Appeal No. 11, the evidence indicated that the respondent drove a motor lorry or bus for trade purposes, not as a domestic servant ministering to the personal needs of the employer or his family. The Magistrate erred by applying the Ordinance without sufficient grounds, rendering the proceedings and orders invalid. The appeals were allowed, and the judgments and sentences set aside.
Obiter and limits
- The civil rights of the parties remain unimpaired despite the outcome of these appeals.
- The Magistrate should have carefully considered the nature of the employment before applying the Ordinance.
Court disposition
appeal_allowed
- All orders and findings made by the Magistrate under the Employment of Natives Ordinance are revoked.
- Judgments and sentences against the appellants are set aside.
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
APPELLATE CRIMINAL.
Before PICKERING, J., and SHERIDAN, J.
CHHAJJA SINGH
$\mathbf{1}$ CROWN. Cr. App. $11/1927$ . JUMA MUNYAMA
$v$ .
E. R. DRIVER.
Cr. App. $12/1927$ .
Employment of Natives Ordinance (Cap. 139)-section 2interpretation of the term "servant".
- $Held:$ —In Cr. App. 11—that a native employed as a driver of a motor lorry or bus for trade purposes is not a servant as defined<br>in the Ordinance. - $Held:$ -In Cr. App. 12—that a native employed as a recruiter is not a servant as defined in the Ordinance.
JUDGMENT.—On 19th January last the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 12 appeared before a Magistrate at Kisii and stated that he wished to sue his master, the respondent, for wages and commission. He produced his Native Registration Certificate on which his employment was stated to be that of a recruiter and his remuneration to be Sh. 9 and commission. The. Magistrate does not appear to have been put on his guard by this information but issued a summons under the Employment of Natives Ordinance (Chap. 139 of 1926). That Ordinance has application only when under the contract of service the servant engages to perform duties answering to one or more of the descriptions set out in section 2 of the Ordinance. It is there enacted that the servant, if he is to acquire the rights and incur the disabilities created by the Employment of Natives Ordinance, must have been employed to work as a labourer, herdsman, artificer, domestic servant, sailor, boatman, porter, messenger or to do work of a like nature to any of these classes.
The work actually done by this appellant was to cross over into Tanganyika Territory and recruit labourers whom the respondent supplied to settlers in this country. Having regard to his duties we are of opinion that the appellant was not a servant within the meaning attached to that word by section 2, and it follows that the provisions of the Employment of Natives
Ordinance had no application to the matter laid before the The proceedings instituted under the Magistrate at Kisii. Ordinance were invalid and all orders which the Magistrate purported to issue and findings which he purported to make under powers created by that Ordinance must be revoked. This appeal No. 12 succeeds and the Judgment passed against the appellant is set aside.
A similar question arises in Criminal Appeal No.
11.
In this case the only information obtainable from the record with regard to the description of the respondent's duties under the admitted contract of service is that he was to drive a motor vehicle for the appellant, who is a small Indian shopkeeper at Ruiru. The only class of employee of those set out in section 2 of the Ordinance within which the respondent could reasonably be held to fall is that of "domestic servant". When considering what meaning should be attributed to those words it appears to us to be reasonable to adopt the language of Warrington, L. J., in In re Jackson (1923, 2 Ch. 369) where he said: "I should think that when a man in the position of this $\frac{1}{2}$ testator talks of domestic servants he intends to include all those who minister to the wants and comforts of himself and his family "." The provisions of the Employment of Natives Ordinance should not have been taken by the Magistrate as having application to the repondent's employment until he was satisfied that the respondent's work as a motor car driver was such as normally ministered to the wants and comforts of the Indian shopkeeper and his family. We are of opinion that the meagre available evidence is much more consistent with a finding that the respondent drove a motor lorry or bus for trade purposes than that he acted as a chaffeur driving the shopkeeper's personal car. The Magistrate has not directed his mind to this question but has assumed the application of the Ordinance when no grounds for any finding to that effect were before him. This appeal No. 11 succeeds and the conviction and sentence are set The civil rights of the various parties to these appeals aside. remain of course unimpaired.
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.