Peter B. Dugara v. R. Crim. App. 818-M-69; 23/1/70; Kimicha, j.

Peter B. Dugara v. R. Crim. App. 818-M-69; 23/1/70; Kimicha, j.

The appellant in this case was convicted of failing to pay his 1967 personal tax c/s 36 (1) Personal Tax Ordinance, Cap. 355, and was sentenced to Shs. 100/- fine or 21 days imprisonment in default. He has now appealed to this Court against conviction and sentence on the ground that he was charged under a wrong section of the law and that it was his employer who was required by law to deduct his personal tax from his salary and pay it to the appropriate authorities. The demand note was in fact sent to his employer.

            Held: (1) “I have considered the relevant law on his employer. And I am satisfied that the appellant has good ground of appeal. In the first place section 36(1) of Cap. 355 under which the appellant was charged and convicted has nothing to do with the alleged offence. Also section 24(1) of the Personal Tax Act, 1967 supports the appellant’s other grounds of appeal that it was the duty of his employer to deduct the tax from his salary. (2) “What should have been done in this case is that the prosecution or the Treasury should have reminding the appellant’s employer that the appellant’s tax was not deducted from his salary as required by the law. The employer would not have had difficulty in rectifying the position. And if the Treasury or the prosecution were of the opinion that the employer was deliberately refusing to comply with the law they could have proceeded against him immediately. The facts as they stand do not reveal a criminal offence against the appellant”. (3) “The appeal is for the above reasons allowed. The conviction is quashed and the sentence is set aside. The appellant is to be refunded the fine that he has paid”.