Wakilii

Rex v Gitwasi (Revision Case No. 253 of 1942)

East African Court of Appeal · [1942] EACA 89 · 1942 Conviction Quashed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal revision from lower court conviction under Employment of Servants Ordinance
Decision
Accused set at liberty

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.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

The Court held that an animal missing for three or four days cannot be said to be irretrievably lost within the meaning of section 59(c)(iii) of the Employment of Servants Ordinance 1937. To hold otherwise would do violence to the language of the section, as an animal lost for a few days may be discovered alive and well within a week or any given period. The onus of proving irretrievable loss lies upon the employer. The conviction and sentence were quashed.

Outcome

Accused set at liberty

Facts

The accused, employed as a herdsman, was convicted under section 59(c)(iii) of the Employment of Servants Ordinance 1937 for losing an animal placed in his charge. The animal had been missing for three or four days at the time of conviction. The accused was sentenced to three months imprisonment in default of payment of a fine. By the time the revision reached the Court of Appeal, the accused had served the greater part of his sentence. The file had been returned to the court by the Magistrate only three or four days before the Court's order.

Issues

  1. Whether an animal missing for three or four days can be said to be 'irretrievably lost' within the meaning of section 59(c)(iii) of the Employment of Servants Ordinance 1937.
  2. Whether the employer discharged the onus of proving irretrievable loss to the satisfaction of the court.

Orders

  • Conviction and sentence quashed.
  • Accused directed to be set at liberty.
  • If any fine or part thereof has been paid, it is directed to be refunded.

Rules and key headnotes

Employment of Servants — Herdsman — Loss of Animal — Irretrievable Loss
An animal missing for three or four days cannot be said to be irretrievably lost within the meaning of section 59(c)(iii) of the Employment of Servants Ordinance 1937, as an animal lost for a few days may be discovered alive and well within a week or any given period.
Burden of Proof — Irretrievable Loss — Employer's Onus
Under section 59(c)(iii) of the Employment of Servants Ordinance 1937, the onus of proving that an animal has been irretrievably lost lies upon the employer.
Penal Statutes — Strict Construction — Language of Statute
To hold that an animal missing for a few days is irretrievably lost would do violence to the language of section 59(c)(iii) of the Employment of Servants Ordinance 1937.

Legislation cited (1)

  • Employment of Servants Ordinance 1937 s.59(c)(iii)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Rex v Gitwasi (Revision Case No. 253 of 1942) [1942] EACA 89 (1 January 1942)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.