Wakilii

Rex v Kisa (Revision Case No. 73 of 1942)

East African Court of Appeal · [1942] EACA 85 · 1942 Revision Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal revision from conviction for desertion under Employment of Servants Ordinance
Decision
Costs order set aside; fine and original sentence remain

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 Employment of Servants Ordinance 1938 contains no authority for awarding costs against a servant convicted of desertion. While section 171 of the Criminal Procedure Code may permit costs orders in individual cases where circumstances justify it, there is no basis for a general practice of ordering costs in all desertion cases. The order for costs with detention in default was quashed.

Outcome

Costs order set aside; fine and original sentence remain

Facts

The accused was convicted of desertion under section 59(e) of the Employment of Servants Ordinance 1938 and sentenced to pay a fine of Sh. 10 with 14 days detention in default. In addition, the trial magistrate ordered the accused to pay Sh. 14/80 costs to the Labour Officer with 21 days detention in default of distress, to be served consecutively. The trial magistrate informed the Court that similar orders for costs had been made in Nakuru since the passing of the Employment of Servants Ordinance, a practice confirmed by the Acting Labour Commissioner as unique to Nakuru.

Issues

  1. Whether the Employment of Servants Ordinance 1938 authorised the award of costs against a servant convicted of desertion.

Orders

  • Order for costs with detention in default quashed.
  • Amount paid to be refunded.

Rules and key headnotes

Employment of Servants Ordinance — Desertion — Costs Orders
The Employment of Servants Ordinance 1938 contains no authority for awarding costs against a servant convicted of desertion under section 59(e).
Costs — Award Against Convicted Person — Statutory Authority Required
While section 171 of the Criminal Procedure Code may permit costs to be awarded against an accused in individual cases where circumstances justify such an order, there is no basis for establishing a general practice of ordering costs in all cases of a particular offence.
Comprehensive Legislation — Implied Exclusion
Where an ordinance is a comprehensive measure on a special subject and contains provisions relating to costs but does not authorise a particular type of costs order, it may be inferred that the ordinance did not contemplate that such orders should be made.

Legislation cited (2)

  • Employment of Servants Ordinance 1938 s.59(e)
  • Criminal Procedure Code s.171

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Rex v Kisa (Revision Case No. 73 of 1942) [1942] EACA 85 (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.