Crown v Wachira (Revision Case 20A/1927.) [1927] EACA 38 (1 January 1927)

## Before PICKERING, J.

## **CROWN**

## $\boldsymbol{v}$ .

## JOHN MUGANES s/o WACHIRA. Revision Case $20A/1927$ .

Employment of Natives Ordinance (Cap. 139), section 2—definition of servant.

$Held:$ —That a clerical overseer in charge of an estate is not a servant as defined in Section 2.

ORDER.—In his Judgment the Magistrate refers to the accused as "a Kikuyu clerk". It would appear that the accused in fact acted as a kind of clerical overseer having practically the responsible position of being in charge of the estate. Visits for supervision were made by a European periodically. It would seem that during this case the Magistrate lost sight of the definition of servant to be found in Cap 139, section $2$ . Under the contract entered into by the accused he did not in my opinion undertake to work as a labourer or as a herdsman, etc. To this contract of service the provisions of Cap. 139 had The employment was simply a common law no application. The Magistrate would seem to have acted under contract. section 45 (1) (a) of the Ordinance. For the reasons given that section had no application and the order authorising the complainant to withhold Sh. 15 is invalid and is set aside.