Crown v Warisha (Confirmation Case 300/1928.) [1928] EACJ 1 (1 January 1928)

## CRIMINAL CONFIRMATION.

### Before SIR JACOB BARTH, C. J., and STEPHENS, J.

#### CROWN.

## $\boldsymbol{v}$ . WAIRISHA wa KAREGI.

# Confirmation Case 300/1928.

- Power of a third class Court to impose, in cases under the Stock and Produce Theft Ordinance (Cap. 79), a fine exceeding the limit set by section 17 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance (Cap. 7). - **Held:**—That the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance<br>do not derogate from the provisions of the earlier Stock and<br>Produce Theft Ordinance, and that a third class subordinate court has jurisdiction to impose a fine of ten times the value of the stock or produce stolen, even if the resulting fine exceeds the sum of $\pounds 20$ .

ORDER.—The short point in this case is whether or not a third class Magistrate has power to impose a fine exceeding Sh. 400 (vide C. P. O., section 17 (3)). The Stock and Produce Theft Ordinance by section 3 enacts: "Whenever any Court shall convict a native of theft of stock or produce the Court shall in addition to or in lieu of imposing any other punishment authorized by law, sentence the native convicted to pay a fine which shall in no case be less than ten times the value of the stock or produce in respect of which the offence has been committed ". In our opinion the provisions of the C. P. O. do not derogate from the provisions of the earlier Stock and Produce Theft Ordinance, and therefore the special provisions of the latter Ordinance making it obligatory on "any Court" convicting a person of the theft of stock or produce to impose a fine of ten times its value are not affected and a third class subordinate Court has jursdiction to impose a fine irrespective of its amount.

This point does not seem to have been argued in Confirma-In our view that case was wrongly tion Case $576/1926$ . decided in so far as it dealt with the jurisdiction of a third class Magistrate to impose a fine of ten times the value of the stock or produce stolen, by holding inferentially that such a Magistrate could not impose a fine in a stock or produce theft case of more than £20, and thereby limiting such a Magistrate's jurisdiction to cases in which ten times the value did not exceed £20. The sentence is confirmed, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment to run from the date of conviction.