Nottidge and Another v Sandalo (Revision Case 113/1927.) [1927] EACA 34 (1 January 1927)

## CRIMINAL REVISION.

Before SHERIDAN, J.

MESSRS. NOTTIDGE & ALLEN

Ú.

## ASHUALA s/o SANDALO.

## Revision Case 113/1927.

Employment of Natives Ordinance (Cap. 139), section 53-penalty on servant leaving service before working off an advance of wages.

Held: That the sum advanced cannot be split up for the purpose of bringing the case within Section 53.

ORDER.—The accused was ill for twenty-one days and thereafter was granted leave; he had been engaged on a thirty-days' contract. As the employer admitted the Sh. 79 was made up of amounts advanced to the accused from time to time. The ingenious view of the Magistrate that this sum can be split up for the purpose of bringing the case within section 53, Cap. 139, is in my opinion untenable. It has to be looked at as a whole and it is clearly not an advance on account of a current contract. Furthermore, the rescission of the contract on the grant of leave had the effect of relegating the employer to a civil action for the recovery of any sum owing by his former servant. $\quad \textbf{The} \quad$ Honourable the Attorney-General does not wish to support the convictions.

The convictions and consequential orders are quashed and the accused ordered to be released.

$105.$