Messrs, Nottidge and Allen v Ashuala (Revision Case No. 113 of 1927)

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

Holding

Held that an advance of wages comprising multiple amounts paid over time cannot be split up to bring a case within section 53 of the Employment of Natives Ordinance. The sum must be looked at as a whole and was not an advance on account of a current contract. Furthermore, rescission of the contract by grant of leave relegated the employer to a civil action for recovery. Convictions quashed.

Outcome

Accused released following quashing of conviction

Facts

The accused was employed under a thirty-days contract. He fell ill for twenty-one days and was thereafter granted leave. The employer advanced Sh. 79 to the accused in multiple amounts over time. The accused left service before working off the advance. The employer prosecuted the accused under section 53 of the Employment of Natives Ordinance for leaving service before working off the advance. The Magistrate convicted the accused, taking the view that the total sum could be split up to bring the case within section 53.

Issues

1. Whether an advance of wages made up of multiple amounts advanced over time can be split up for the purpose of bringing a prosecution within section 53 of the Employment of Natives Ordinance.
2. Whether rescission of an employment contract by grant of leave relegates the employer to a civil action for recovery of sums owed.

Orders

• Convictions quashed.
• Consequential orders quashed.
• Accused ordered to be released.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (1)

• Employment of Natives Ordinance (Cap. 139) s.53

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.