N. R. Ladak & Sons v. Republic Crim. App. 637-M-68, 15/10/68, Seaton, J.

N. R. Ladak & Sons v. Republic Crim. App. 637-M-68, 15/10/68, Seaton, J.

A partnership appealed from a conviction upon a charge of failing to pay a particular employee the required minimum wage under the Employment Ordinance. The defendant pleaded autrefois acquit on the ground that he had been acquitted in an earlier case involving the same charge. The magistrate held that the earlier case was against one of the partners only, and that the partner was a different person in law than the partnership. He also found that in the earlier case the named partner had not appeared, but his did. On appeal the State Attorney conceded that the defendant intended to be charged in each of the cases was the employer of the particular employee involved.

            Held; The first case was s nullity since it was erroneous to dispense with the presence of the accused. Under s. 99, Criminal Procedure Code, such presence may be dispensed with only if the accused submits a written plea of guilty or appears by an advocate. Therefore the plea of autrefois acquit under s. 139, Criminal Procedure Code, failed. But the Court also held that it was error to charge, convict, or sentence a unincorporated body in its firm name rather than in the name of the individuals, citing Nterekeiyna Bus Service v. R. (1966) E.A.C.A. 333. The conviction was therefore quashed.