R. v. Amina d/o Sefu, Inspection Note, Korogwe Crim. Case 647-69, 26/11/69, Georges C. J.

R. v. Amina d/o Sefu, Inspection Note, Korogwe Crim. Case 647-69, 26/11/69, Georges C. J.

The accused, a lady, was charged with having committed three offences under the Employment Ordinance Cap. 366, two offenses under the Regulation of Wages and Terms of Employment Ordinance Cap. 300 and one under the Workmen’s Compensation Ordinance Cap. 263. She was the owner of a bar and the prosecution led evidence to establish that she had paid a bar maid less than the statutory minimum wage, had failed to make a memorandum of an oral agreement

of employment, had failed to keep proper books and had failed to insure her workmen. Without deciding the factual issues raised the District Magistrate dismissed the charges. He pointed out that the pronoun “he” had been used in relation to an employer in each of this Ordinance, and concluded that hey could not apply to female employer.

            Held: “The answer to the apparent difficulty is to be found in the Interpretation Ordinance Cap. 1 section 2 which reads: - (quoting only the relevant part) …..”words importing the masculine gender include females words in the singular include the plural and words in the plural include the singular.” There is nothing in the context of the Ordinance under which the accused was charged to show that female employers were not to be excluded nor are they excluded by the very subject matter of the legislation. This section, therefore, applies. The trial Magistrate erred. Since the prosecution do not wish to appeal this serves as an Inspection Note for the guidance of the Magistrate.”