Manager, Tank Building Contractors v. R., Crim. App. 544-D-67, 4/1/67. Saidi J.

Manager, Tank Building Contractors v. R., Crim. App. 544-D-67, 4/1/67. Saidi J.

Accused ‘s advocate pleaded guilty for his client to several violations of the Factory Ordinance, Cap. 297.

            Held; (1) Crim. Proc. Code s. 99 provides that an advocate can plead on behalf of an accused person only when permission has been given to dispense with the personal appearance of Accused, and appearance is by an advocate. [Citing D. P. P. v. Vincent Mtefu, Crim. App. 210 of 1965, reported in Gazette Supplement No. 1 of 1967.] Conviction quashed. (2) The court stated, obiter: “It may be argued that a plea of guilty could still be recorded against an accused whose attendance is not dispensed with under section 99 of the Criminal Procedure Code but who pleads and appears by advocate who submits the plead of the accused in writing to the court and confirms that the accused is pleading guilty. Personally I can see nothing wrong with this course being accepted by the court in the majority of cases which are not grave offences and are punishable mostly by fines. This course would not be open to grave offences which are normally punishable with prison sentences.”