Mr. Bennett v Matangota (Revision Case 98/1927.) [1927] EACA 35 (1 January 1927)

## CRIMINAL REVISION.

## Before SHERIDAN, J.

CROWN through MR. BENNETT

$\overline{12}$ .

## MABISHUA s/o MATANGOTA.

Revision Case 98/1927.

- Employment of Natives Ordinance (Cap. 139), section 53penalty on servant leaving service before working off an advance of wages. - *Held*:—That before the section can be considered applicable there<br>must be in existence a valid contract under Cap. 139, and the<br>money owing must have been an advance on account of that contract.

ORDER.—The mere fact of leaving his employer owing him money is insufficient to bring the case under section 53, Cap. 139. At the time of leaving, before the section can be considered applicable, there must be in existence a valid contract under Cap. 139 and the money owing must have been an advance on account of that contract. In case No. 318 the file does not disclose the nature of the contract, but I assume it was a thirty-day contract. On this assumption, before the Magistrate could say that the case fell within the provisions of section 53, he had to ascertain whether an advance of Sh. 20 was compatible with a thirty-day contract. The probabilities are against the Sh. 20 having been a genuine advance. My experience of such cases is that there is always a loan in existence which has the effect-at least the employer thinks so-of retaining the services of the employee from card to card. Such loans are perfectly legal and recoverable by civil process but do not give rise to a prosecution under section 53, Cap. 139. The conviction and sentence are set aside.