Malika s/o Kabendera v. R., Crim. App. 303-D-68, 30/8/68, Georges, C. J.

Malika s/o Kabendera v. R., Crim. App. 303-D-68, 30/8/68, Georges, C. J.

Accused was convicted of driving, on a road, a motor vehicle which had a number of defects. The complainant had testified that he was on the “Kilombero Estate road” when he saw the vehicle. “going along Msorwa Estate”, carrying a load of cane. There was no other evidence as to the nature of the road on which the vehicle was traveling.

            Held: Conviction quashed: (1) The prosecution has not led enough evidence to show that the vehicle was being driven along a “road” within the meaning of the Traffic Ordinance. “If it was an estate road, then it may well not have been a road within that definition.” (2) There is some uncertainty as to the meaning of the word “road” as used in the Traffic Ordinance. It was originally defined in the Traffic Ordinance, Cap. 168, s. 2. However the Traffic Ordinance (Amendment) Act, 1964, supplied a new and more restricted definition of “road”, without repealing the old definition. The uncertainty is as to which definition applies.