Crown v Ndolo (Revision Case No. 24 of 1927) [1927] EACA 22 (1 January 1927)

## CRIMINAL REVISION.

## Before- P1cKERINO, J.

## cuow:s

*v.*

## NDOLO s/o· WA-MBUA. Revision Case 24/1927.

Habitual Offenders-Rules under section 446 of · the Criminal Procedure Ordino.nce.

*H* e/,1 : -That· the 01·der to report monthly is *1,ltra* tJires the Ordinance.

The Rules under section 445 Cr. **P. O. are** published at pages 186 and 187, Volume 1, of the Orders, Proclamations, etc. Rule 9 is the Rule which is held to .be *ultra vires.*

0RDER.-This case is not without difficulty. It would llJJpear from the notes of the evidence that a Fort, Hall criminal file 86/1922 was produced. If so, the sentence was duly proved. If the charge wns put to the accused that he failed to report his i1ddress it was inaccurate but not. wholly. misleading: Looking at, the 1912 Rules it is clear that before leaving gaol he must have notified his address. From the Police Report it would appear that what he really failed to do was to notify 11 change of· residence. The orde\_r to report monthl:'· is of no effect-, the Rule of 1916 being *ultra vircs* derived fro·m section 446 (3) Criminal Procedure Ordinance. The sentence of imprit;nnment in default of payment. of the fine is ·altered from rigorous to simple imprisonment.

Note.-ln Criminal Re~ision Case 21/1927 the Rule of 1916 was held to be *ultra vires* by Pickering, J, and Sheri~n, J.