Merali v Rex (Cr. App. 47/1929) [1929] EACA 149 (1 January 1929)

#### APPELLATE CRIMINAL.

Before SIR JACOB BARTH, C. J., and THOMAS, J.

### KHANBHAI MERALI

#### $(Appellant)$

$v$ .

## REX

# (Respondent).

## Cr. App. 47/1929.

The Registration of Business Names Ordinance (Cap. 92). section $3$ —firms and persons to be registered.

Held: -That in the case of lorries which trade on the road registration is necessary, and that for the purposes of the Ordinance, the road between the places to which the forries ply can be regarded as the place of business.

JUDGMENT (dated 13-1-30).—The appellant has been convicted under the Registration of Business Names Ordinance by the learned Resident Magistrate, Nairobi, for not registering the fact that he was carrying on business in the name of his son. The appellant in fact admitted that he was trading in the name of his son who is a boy at school.

The Registrar under the Ordinance gave evidence of the fact that the appellant had not registered his business as provided by the Ordinance.

The grounds of this appeal are firstly that there was not a plea of guilty. The facts however which we have stated above constitute proof of the offence. The next point was that there is no place of business proved and that therefore the section does not apply. If as Mr. Hopley has suggested the lorries trade on the road we are still of opinion that registration is necessary, and that for the purposes of the Ordinance the road between the places to which the lorries ply can be regarded as the place of business.

The last argument was that reference by the Registrar, who is also Official Receiver, to what has been said in a bankruptcy case is inadmissible in the absence of proof of the record in the bankruptcy proceedings.

It is argued that such reference influenced the Magistrate's mind and was the cause of the infliction of a substantial fine. We are of opinion that what the accused himself said in the bankruptcy proceedings in the presence of the Official Receiver would be admissible evidence.

On consideration of the facts we are of opinion that the finding and sentence of the learned Resident Magistrate should not be interfered with. The appeal is dismissed.