Rex v Huko and Others (Revision Cases 121-130/1929.) [1929] EACA 165 (1 January 1929)

### CRIMINAL REVISION.

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

# $\mathring{\mathbf{REX}}$

#### $\boldsymbol{v}$ .

## JOHANA HUKO AND OTHERS. Revision Cases 121-130/1929.

Native Hut and Poll Tax Ordinance (Cap. 51), section 8 (2)-, Court may award costs against defaulter in proceedings to recover tax.

Held: -That Section 8 (2) contemplates only one payment for costs in the same case, irrespective of the number of years for which it is sought to recover tax, such sum not to exceed Sh. 6.

ORDER.—The accused has been convicted of non-payment of hut and poll tax for more than one year and has been ordered to pay sums in excess of Sh. 6 as costs. In my view section 8 $(2)$ of the Native Hut and Poll Tax Ordinance contemplates only one payment for costs in the same case, irrespective of the. number of years for which it is sought to recover tax, such sum not to exceed Sh. 6. It therefore follows that the order for costs exceeding Sh. 6 is irregular and such excess, if paid, should be refunded.