Recent Posts

6/recent/ticker-posts

R. v. Mohamed (Werema) s/o Ntari, Crim. Rev. 31-M-67, 8/867, Cross, J.



R. v. Mohamed (Werema) s/o Ntari, Crim. Rev. 31-M-67, 8/867, Cross, J.

Accused was convicted of disobedience of statutory duty. [P. C. s. 123.] He was charged with, and admitted to, willfully disobeying a “statutory order. … not to build any building on Plot No. 7 in Bunda township…..” Section 123 provides, in relevant part, “Everyone who willfully disobeys any Statute or Ordinance by doing any act which it forbids …… and which concerns the public or any part of the public, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

            Held; (1)The words “Statute or Ordinance” include subsidiary legislation made or passed under the authority of any statute Or ordinance. However, it must be alleged and proved that the act which was done has been forbidden either by a statute or ordinance or by subsidiary legislation. The act charged was in violation of an Order of an Area Secretary and was, therefore, not in violation of section 123. The charge should have been made under section 124 of the Penal Code. (3) In light of information not presented at the trial, that subsequent to the date of the commission of the offence accused was give permission to continue development of the plot, conviction was quashed.

Post a Comment

0 Comments