REPUBLIC v MABULA MIHAMBO 1984 TLR 89 (HC)

REPUBLIC v MABULA MIHAMBO 1984 TLR 89 (HC)

Court High Court of Tanzania - Mwanza

Judge Katiti J

April 30, 1985

H CRIMINAL REVISION 4 OF 1984

Flynote

Criminal Law - Regulation of Prices Act 1973, s. 8(1) - Selling goods above aggregated

price - Whether an offence.

I Statutory Interpretation - Aggregate price and Maximum price - Whether same -

Meaning of - Regulation of Prices Act 1973, ss.20 and 26.

1984 TLR p90

KATITI J

Statutory Interpretation - Delegated legislation - Construction of- Where doubts

arise, benefit of doubt A should be given to the accused.

-Headnote

The accused had been convicted on his own plea of guilty to a charge of selling fish

exceeding aggregated maximum price contrary to ss. 20 and 26 of the Regulation of

Prices Act 1973. On revision B it was considered whether there was any offence

disclosed under the provisions of sections 20 and 26 of the said Act.

Held: (i) Selling goods above aggregated price is not an offence under the Regulation

of Prices Act C 1973;

(ii) the powers of the Assistant Price Commissioner is to determine price

structures by fixing maximum prices for sale of goods or services, and not aggregate

prices;

(iii) aggregate is not the same as maximum and the statutory definition

"maximum price" does D not necessarily mean "aggregate price";

(iv) where the construction of a delegated legislation results in ambiguities, or

absurdities, or give rise to oppressive doubtful results, the benefit of doubt should

always be given to the accused. E

Case Information

Conviction quashed

No case referred to

[zJDz]Judgment

Katiti, J.: The accused person Mabula Mihambo, stood before Bunda District Court,

charged under F the provisions of section 20 and 25 of 26 of the Regulations of

Prices Act 1973. The charge that provoked curiosity, and hence the revision, was

strangely worded, as follows: G

(1) OFFENCE, SECTION AND LAW:

Selling/fish exceeding aggregated maximum Price/s. 20 and 26 of the Price

Regulation Act No. 19 of 1973. H

(2) PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE

Mabula Mihambo charged on 3rd day of January 1984 at about 13.30 hours at

Bunda Market, within the District of Bunda; Mara Region, did sell fishes (satu) at Shs.

180/= whereas the actual price is Shs. 90/= thus exceeding aggregated maximum price.

I

1984 TLR p91

KATITI J

A The above charge, did arise from the price structures, determined, or fixed by the

Bunda District Assistant Price Commissioner; under the empowering provisions of

Section 7. 9 and 10 of the Regulation of Prices Act 1973, hereafter to be referred to as

the Act. The accused having had the B above charge read to him, he is recorded to

have pleaded guilty, automatically thereby earning a conviction on his own plea of

guilty. He was sentenced to a fine of Shs. 6,500/- or one year imprisonment.

The accused has not appealed. All the same, what did cause uneasiness is the wording,

or form of C the charge, and whether any offence under the provisions of sections 20

and 26 of the Act is disclosed. I shall first deal with the aspect of the wording of the

charge, whose nagging influence is tangible. Both the statement of offence, and the

particulars of offence do aver, that the accused did D sell fish above the aggregated

price, and therefore offended the charged sections. Having anxiously considered the

charge I fail to imagine what an aggregate price in this case, meant to the accused

person, who allegedly sold the commodity, or commodities concerned. Further, while

it is not rhetoric, but a factual legal situation, that the Assistant Price Commissioner

has power to E determine price structures, in so doing, he has to fix maximum prices

for sale of goods, or services (see section 8(1) of the Act), and not aggregate prices. For

aggregate priced goods, may not necessarily have the same meaning, as statutorily

assigned to, the price-controlled goods, in as F much as, "maximum price", as

ordinarily what is aggregated cannot be taken as the maximum. I would therefore,

easily conclude that selling goods above aggregated price, is not an offence known to

the Regulation of Prices Act 1973.

I was minded to think, that despite the problem of wording, or form above shown in

the charge, the G accused must have had substance clear, till I saw and read, the

Bunda District Assistant Price Commissioner's Price List Notice Ref. No. BS/10/1/Vol.

14 of 21st June, 1983. In so far as the price is material for purposes in this case, the

prices of "ngege" otherwise known as "satu", were fixed as follows:

H (1) Ngege -

(a) Mkubwa (Kigoma) Shs. 15.00

(b) Kawaida Shs. 10.00

(c) Ndogo Shs. 5.0

I With due respect, these swahili terms "mkubwa", "kawaida" and "ndogo" are only

expressive of relative sizes, and are not absolute

1984 TLR p92

KATITI J

standard measures, for what is "mkubwa" or "ndogo" or "kawaida" to one, may qualify

for a A different size, in the eyes and estimate of another, and in price terms qualify

for a different price. For instance, if "ngege" mkubwa (Kigoma) is to sell at Shs. 15/=

each, and as to who is determining mkubwa is anybody's guess, one wonders, how

"ngege" "mkubwa sana" would sell, and where the B "ngege" is "Mkubwa sana" in the

view of the businessman, is the said businessman not entitled to determine his own

price, in any case who has the competence to say it is not "mkubwa sana", but only,

"mkubwa"? Is it the police, or the complainant, and who decides, when the accused

say it is C "mkubwa sana", and by what standard of measure. In the circumstances of

this case, these are pertinent, though blind questions. But we had imperial weights

and measures, and now we have a metric system, and why these standard measures

were not applied beats my mind.

I am posing the above without oblivion, that the Assistant Price Commissioner acted

under D delegated powers, to determine price structures under the provisions

already above shown. Further I am not under the influence of oblivion, to the fact

that, the over-riding principle in the interpretation of legislation, made under power

conferred by statute, is that it should be construed in the light of E the enabling

statue generally, and in particular so as to be consistent with the substantive

provisions, and it is the duty of courts to give a fair and full effect to the same. But

where the construction of such legislation results in ambiguities, or absurdities, or

give rise to oppressive F doubtful results, the benefit of doubt should always be given

to the accused.

In this case, as selling above aggregate price is not an offence known to the Regulation

of Prices Act 1973, and as otherwise, the measures are of doubtful precision, and left

to be subjectively based, G I am satisfied the conviction entered against the accused

is very unsafe. The conviction is hereby quashed, and fine order set aside. The fine, or

any amount thereof if paid, to be refunded.

Conviction quashed. H

1984 TLR p93

A