Rex v Mall (Criminal Appeal No. 208 91 1943.)
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 methylated spirits falls within the definition of intoxicating liquor under the Liquor Ordinance, 1934, and that the Ordinance applies to persons selling methylated spirits to natives. However, because a person licensed under the Ordinance is prohibited from selling methylated spirits under their licence, a person cannot be prosecuted for selling methylated spirits without a licence under the Ordinance. Conviction on the first count (supplying natives with methylated spirits) upheld; conviction on the second count (selling without a licence) set aside.
Outcome
Appellant's conviction for supplying natives with methylated spirits upheld with fine of Sh. 3,000; conviction for selling methylated spirits without a licence set aside
Facts
The appellant was convicted by a Magistrate's Court on two counts: supplying natives with methylated spirits and selling methylated spirits without a licence, both arising from the same transaction. The Magistrate imposed a fine of Sh. 3,000 on the first count. The appellant challenged the convictions on appeal, raising issues about the identity of the accused and the applicability of the Liquor Ordinance, 1934 to methylated spirits. The Court of Appeal considered evidence regarding the identity of the accused and the legal interpretation of the Ordinance's provisions concerning methylated spirits.
Issues
- Whether methylated spirits is included in the definition of 'intoxicating liquor' under section 3 of the Liquor Ordinance, 1934.
- Whether the provisions of the Liquor Ordinance, 1934 apply to persons selling methylated spirits to natives.
- Whether a person can be prosecuted for selling methylated spirits without a licence under section 44 of the Liquor Ordinance, 1934.
Orders
- Appeal on the first count dismissed.
- Conviction and sentence on the second count set aside.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (5)
- Liquor Ordinance 1934 s.3
- Liquor Ordinance 1934 s.4(2)
- Liquor Ordinance 1934 s.39
- Liquor Ordinance 1934 s.44
- Liquor Ordinance 1934 s.2(3)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.