Stanislaus s/o Kyamwibula Crim. App. 896-M-68, 19/2/69 Seaton J.

Stanislaus s/o Kyamwibula Crim. App. 896-M-68, 19/2/69 Seaton J.

The appellant was convicted of failing to register his private hire motor vehicle within Bukoba Township as required by G. N. 91 of 18/3/66 made under s. 27 (2) (a) and 3(a) (iii) of the Traffic Ordinance, Cap. 168. When the charge was read over and explained to the appellant, e is recorded as having said: “It is true.” This was entered as a plea of guilty. In his memorandum of appeal, the appellant denies that he pleaded guilty to the charge.

Held: “Private hire vehicle” is defined in G. N. 91 of 1966 to include “any motor vehicle which is constructed or adapted solely or mainly for the carriage of passengers and their personal baggage, and having a seating capacity, as assessed by the licensing authority in the area of jurisdiction of the Council, for not more than 8 – persons (including the driver …….”). As this definition is rather complex, it would be desirable when persons are accused with contravening the provisions of s. 27(2) (a) and 3(a) (ii) of Cap. 168, for the prosecutor to outline the facts relied on in support of the prosecutor to outline the facts relied on in support of the charge and then to hear the appellant’s reply thereto before entering a conviction on a plea of guilty. The failure to followed such procedure in the present case has led to some doubt as to whether the plea. “It is true”, admitted all the ingredient of the offence charged. Appeal allowed and trial de novo ordered.