Rex v Jabir (Criminal Appeal No. 465 of 1948)
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 erecting an additional building without permission on Crown Land that had been lawfully occupied since 1935 does not amount to unlawful occupation under the Crown Lands Ordinance. Although the onus of proof of lawful occupation lay on the accused, the prosecution evidence itself showed lawful occupation since 1935. The Court found no legal authority for the verbal instructions prohibiting building and could not reconcile previous lawful occupation with unlawful additional building. Appeal allowed, conviction quashed.
Outcome
Accused acquitted, conviction quashed and sentence set aside, fine to be refunded if paid.
Facts
The appellant had resided on Plot No. 117 at Kibera (Crown Land) since 1935, with two shops and a residence on the plot. In May 1948, he erected an additional building without permission from the Location Superintendent. The Superintendent, acting on verbal instructions received upon his appointment in August 1945, ordered the appellant to stop construction and later to demolish the building. When the appellant refused, he was charged and convicted under section 144 of the Crown Lands Ordinance for unlawful occupation of Crown Land. The Superintendent testified that occupiers at Kibera were not allowed to erect any building without authority, but these instructions were verbal only. The appellant had no written agreement with Government but records showed continuous occupation since 1935.
Issues
- Whether the erection of an additional building without permission on Crown Land previously lawfully occupied constitutes unlawful occupation under section 144 of the Crown Lands Ordinance.
- Whether the appellant discharged the onus of proof under section 133 of the Crown Lands Ordinance that his occupation was lawful.
- Whether verbal instructions given to a Location Superintendent constitute legal authority to render previously lawful occupation unlawful.
Orders
- Appeal allowed.
- Conviction quashed.
- Sentence set aside.
- Fine if paid to be refunded.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (3)
- Crown Lands Ordinance Cap. 140 s.144
- Crown Lands Ordinance Cap. 140 s.133
- Crown Lands Ordinance Cap. 140 s.5
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.