Crown v Nyangata (Revision Case No. 23 of 1927) [1927] EACA 21 (1 January 1927)

## CRIMINAL REVISION.

Before PICKERING. J.

## **CROWN**

$\mathbf{1}$

## NYANGATA s/o MARUA.

## Revision Case 23/1927.

- Native Authority Ordinance (Cap. 129), section 8 (j)—power of headman to issue orders regulating the movement of natives from the jurisdiction of one headman to that of another. - Held: —That proof of the issue of order is required; that "Movement" refers to a change of residence; and that headman in the Ordinance means a headman appointed under Section 3 thereof.

ORDER.—The provision of Cap. 129 cited by the Magistrate authorizes the promulgation of orders regulating the movements of natives from the jurisdiction of one headman to that of another. In this case there is no suggestion as to what regulations were in fact promulgated by the headman in whose jurisdiction the accused was supposed to have lived. I assume that this headman was Mutoki. What regulations Mutoki published and when and how is unknown; also there is no allegation that the accused at the time of a promulgation lived in Mutoki's jurisdiction. Now in section 8 $(j)$ movement refers to a change of area of residence. Such regulations cannot confine a man's nerambulations to a headman's district, or even prevent a Moreover, the word "regulate" is not prolonged *safari*. synonymous with the word "prevent." What the accused had done cannot be gathered from the file. "Some time ago" may mean anything. Finally the movement, if any, was from Kisii to Tanganyika Territories. This cannot be regarded as a movement from the jurisdiction of one headman to that of "Headman" in this Ordinance means a headman another. appointed under section 3 thereof. If the orders promulgated are set out in the charge an opportunity of ascertaining their legality or illegality is given.

This conviction is quashed and the fine must be returned (if paid).