Rashidi v. R. Crim. App. 411-M-70; 28/9/70; Mnzavas, Ag. J.

 

Rashidi v. R. Crim. App. 411-M-70; 28/9/70; Mnzavas, Ag. J.

The accused had one, Shaban Hussein, as one of his employees. Shaban died on 22/2/70 of natural causes. Under section 3(5) of Cap. 330, it is a mandatory provision that an employer has to report the death of a worker as soon as practicable, to a labour officer. The section does not say within what period after the death of a worker is an employer required to report the death tot eh labour officer. In this case after the Labour Officer in Kigoma had discovered that one of the accused employees had died, the labour officer wrote him letters requesting him to report the death of his employee by filling in the necessary forms. The accused contacted his advocate and on 12/3/70 the accused made the death report the labour officer. The accused was convicted of failing to notify death of an employee c/ss. 3(5) and 8(1) of the Accidents and Occupational diseases(Notification) Ordinance, Cap 330 of the Laws; and sentenced to a fine of Shs. 100/- or three months imprisonment in default. The trial magistrate in his judgment said that “…… it was after several letters were sent to the accused by the labour officer that the accused contacted his advocate and asked him to comply with the labour officer’s request.” This behavior of the accused was interpreted by the magistrate as Tanta-mount to failure on the part of the accused to furnish the labour officer with the report. On appeal to the High Court.

            Held: “I am afraid I do not understand the learned magistrate’s argument. The labour officer may have sent many letters to the accused asking for the report, but this fact does not necessarily prove that the accused failed to send the report. The employee died on 22/2/70, the accused cent the report after his death. This being the position if ail to see why the magistrate says that the accused was late in sending the report. The section of the law is itself as vague as to the question of time limit an employer is require to report of a death of a worker that I am of the view that taking into account the facts of this case the appellant cannot be said to have delayed in reporting the death of his employee.” (2) “May I also add that delay in furnishing the labour officer with a report under section 3(5) of the Ordinance does not constitute an offence: what amounts to an offence under the section is total failure to report a death of a worker. In this case the appellant did report the death of his employee within less than a month after his death.” (3) Appeal allowed, conviction quashed and sentence set aside.