Re Garnets Mining Co Ltd

High Court, at Nairobi 21st, 22nd December 1977, 20th January8th, 9th February 5th, 6th, 10th-12th, 14th , 17th-19th, 21st July, 23rd November 1978

Kneller J

Winding-up Cause No 12 of 1977

Winding-up – winding-up by Court – circumstances in which order may be made – just and equitable – criteria – loss of confidence in management – Companies Act (Cap 486), section 219(f).

Winding-up – winding-up by Court – petitioner – need for petitioner to come to Court with clean hands – petition relying on just and equitable ground.

Winding-up – winding-up by Court – circumstances in which order may be made – just and equitable – criteria – company a quasi-partnership – Companies Act (cap 486), section 219(f).

Whether or not a company should be wound up by the Court on the ground that it is just and equitable to wind it up under section 219(f) of the Companies Act is a matter of discretion. The court’s discretion in this respect is wide and must be exercised judicially. Each case depends on its own facts as they are at the time of the hearing; but, generally, where a petitioner can show that he has lost confidence in the management of the company because it has a lack of probity, the court’s discretion (in the absence of special circumstances) is likely to be exercised in his favour.

A petitioner seeking to rely on just and equitable grounds must approach the Court with clean hands.

Re Blériot Manufacturing Air Craft Co (1916) 32 TL R 253, Baird v Lees 1924 SC 83, Loch v John Blackwood Ltd [1924] AC 783, Davis & Co Ltd v Brunswick (Australia) Ltd [1936] 1 All ER 299, Re Straw Products Pty Ltd [1942] VLR 222, Re Fildes Bros Ltd [1970] 1 WLR 592, Ebrahimi v Westbourne Galleries Ltd [1973] AC 360 and Cookson v Knowles [1978] 2 WLR 978 Applied.

Where a company is a quasi-partnership, even if all the creditors or shareholders are not entitled to participate in the conduct of the company’s business, the company may be wound up by the Court under section 219(f) of the Companies Act on the ground of its being just and equitable, in circumstances where it would be appropriate to dissolve a partnership; but this would not be the case where the cause of complaint arises from the valid exercise by the other members of their powers under the articles of association.

Symington v Symington’s Quarries Ltd 1905 8 F 121, Re Yenidje Tobacco Co Ltd [1916] 2 Ch 426, Loch v John Blackwood Ltd [1924] AC 783, Thomson v Drysdale 1925 SC 311, Tench v Tench Bros [1930] NZLR 403, Re Davis and Collett Ltd [1935] Ch 693, Re Cuthbert Cooper & Sons Ltd [1937] Ch 392, Re Straw Products Pty Ltd [1942] VLR 222 and Re Wondoflex Textiles Pty Ltd [1951] V L R 458 applied

Cases referred to in judgment:

1. A&BC Chewing Gum Ltd, Re [1975] 1 WLR 579, [1975] 1 All ER 1017.
2. Alexander v Automatic Telephone Co [1900] 2 Ch 56, 69 LJ Ch 428, 82 LT 400, CA.
3. Baird v Lees 1924 SC 83.
4. Bellador Silk Ltd, Re [1965] 1 All ER 667.
5. Bentley-Stevens v Jones [1974] 1 WLR 638, [1974] 2 All ER 653.
6. Blériot Manufacturing Air Craft Co, Re (1916) 32 TLR 253.
7. Busland v Earle [1902] AC 83.
8. Campbell v Rothwell (1877) 47 LJQ 144, 38 LT 33.
9. Charles Forte Investments Ltd v Amanda [1964] Ch 240, [1963] 3 WLR 662, [1963] 2 All ER 940, CA.
10. Chesterfield Catering Co Ltd, Re [1977] Ch 373, [1976] 3 WLR 879, [1976] 3 All ER 294.
11. Clemens v Clemens Bros [1976] 2 All E R 268.
12. Cohen, Re [1924] 2 Ch 515, 94 LJ Ch 73, CA.
13. Cookson v Knowles [1979] AC 556, [1978] 2 WLR 978, [1978] 2 All ER 604, HL.
14. Cumberland Holdings Ltd, Re [1976] 1 ACLR.
15. Cuthbert Cooper & Sons Ltd, Re [1937] Ch 392, [1937] 2 All ER 466.
16. Daniels v Daniels [1978] Ch 406, [1978] 2 WLR 73, [1978] 2 All ER 89.
17. Daslo-Stolan Mining & Financial Corporation Ltd, Re [1910] WN 13.
18. Davis & Co Ltd v Brunswick (Australia) Ltd [1936] 1 All ER 299, PC.
19. Davis and Collett Ltd, Re [1935] Ch 693, 104 L J Ch 340, 153 LT 329.
20. Davis Investments (East Ham) Ltd, Re [1961] 1 WLR 1396, [1961] 3 All ER 926, CA.
21. Diamond Fuel Co, Re (1879) 13 Ch D 400, 49 LJ Ch 301, 41 LT 779, CA.
22. Ebrahimi v Westbourne Galleries Ltd [1973] AC 360, [1972] 2 WLR 1289, [1972] 2 All ER 492, HL.
23. Expanded Plugs Ltd, Re [1966] 1 WLR 514, [1966] 1 All ER 887.
24. Fildes Bros Ltd, Re [1970] 1 WLR 592, [1970] 1 All ER 923.
25. Foss v Harbottle (1843) 2 Hare 461.
26. German Date Coffee Co, Re (1882) 20 Ch D 169, 51 LJ Ch 564, 46 LT 327, CA.
27. Gold Hill Mines, Re (1883) 23 Ch D 210, 49 LT 66, CA.
28. Hang (Sverre) v Buhemba Mines Ltd (1953) 20 EA CA 28.
29. Haven Gold Mining Co, Re (1882) 20 Ch D 151, 51 L J Ch 242, 42 LT 322, CA.
30. Hawken (S A) Ltd, Re [1950] 2 All E R 408.
31. Haycraft Gold Reduction and Mining Co, Re [1900] 2 Ch 230, 69 LJ Ch 497, 83 LT 166.
32. K/9 Meat Supplies (Guildford) Ltd, Re [1966] 1 WLR 1112, [1966] 3 All ER 320.
33. Kitson & Co Ltd, Re [1946] 1 All ER 435, CA.
34. Leadenhall General Hardware Stores Ltd, Re (1971) 115 SJ 202.
35. Lewis v Haas 1970 SLT (Notes) 67.
36. Loch v John Blackwood Ltd [1924] AC 783, 93 LJP C 257, 131 L T 719, PC.
37. London and Manchester Industrial Association, Re (1875) 1 Ch D 466.
38. London Suburban Bank, Re (1871) 6 Ch App 164, 40 LJ Ch 774.
39. Lundie Bros Ltd, Re [1965] 1 WLR 1051, [1965] 2 All ER 692.
40. Mason Bros Ltd, Re (1891) 12 NSW Eq 183.
41. Meyers v Cassidy (1913) 17 CLR 90, High Court of Australia.
42. Modern Retreading Co Ltd, Re [1962] EA 57, High Court of Tanzania.
43. Mohamed Mitha v Ibrahim Mitha [1967] EA 575, High Court of Uganda.
44. Mozley v Alston (1847) 1 Ph 790, 16 LJ Ch 217, 9 LTO S 97.
45. New Callao Ltd, Re (1882) 47 LT 175.
46. Newman and Howard Ltd, Re [1962] Ch 257, [1961] 3 WLR 192, [1961] 2 All ER 495.
47. North End Motels (Huntly) Ltd, Re [1976] NZLR 446.
48. Oakbank Oil Co v Crum (1882) 8 App Cas 65, 48 L T 537, H L.
49. Othery Construction Ltd, Re [1966] 1 WLR 69, [1966] 1 All ER 145.
50. Peruvian Amazon Co Ltd, Re (1913) 29 TLR 384.
51. Phillips v Manufacturers’ Securities Ltd (1917) 86 LJ Ch 305, 116 LT 290, CA.
52. Rhoprops Ltd, Ex parte; Re Piras Garden Properties (Pvt) Ltd 1953 (3) SA 630.
53. Rica Gold Washing Co, Re (1879) 11 Ch D 36, 40 Lt 531, CA.
54. Smith and Fawcett Ltd, Re [1942] Ch 304, [1942] 1 All ER 542, CA.
55. Spackman, Ex parte (1899) 1 Mac & G 170, 18 L J Ch 261, 13 LTOS 358, 41 ER 1229.
56. Straw Products Pty Ltd, Re [1942] VLR 222.
57. Suburban Hotel Co, Re (1867) 2 Ch App 737, 36 LJ Ch 710, 17 LT 22.
58. Symington v Symington’s Quarries Ltd 1905 8 F 121.
59. Taldua Rubber Co Ltd, Re [1946] 2 All ER 763.
60. Tench v Tench Bros [1930] NZLR 403.
61. Thomas Edward Brinsmead & Sons, Re [1897] 1 Ch 406, 66 L J Ch 290, 76 LT 100, CA.
62. Thomson v Drysdale1925 SC 311.
63. West Surrey Tanning Co, Re (1866) LR 2 Eq 737.
64. Wondoflex Textiles Pty Ltd, Re [1951] VLR 458.
65. Yenidje Tobacco Co Ltd, Re [1916] 2 Ch 426, 86 LJ Ch 1, 115 LT 530, CA.

Petition

Mrs Beth Wambui Mugo petitioned the Court in Winding-up Cause No 12 of 1977 to wind up Garnets Mining Co Ltd. The company opposed the petition. In the course of his judgment, Kneller J described the petitioner as the daughter of Mr James Muigai, the brother of the late President Kenyatta. She was married to Mr Nicholas Mugo, the Ambassador to Ethiopia and later to various countries in Europe.

Advocates

P Le Pelley and KA Fraser for the Petitioner.

PK Muite for Garnets.

Cur adv vult.

Joseph Wangangu v The Republic

Kamau Macharia v The Republic

High Court, Appellate Side, Nairobi 20th December 1977

Trevelyan & Todd JJ

Theft - robbery - use of actual violence - meaning of “actual violence” - victim pushed and tied up - Penal Code (cap 63), section 295.

In section 295 of the Penal Code, which defined the offence of robbery, the expression “actual violence” means any unjustifiable force. Hence the pushing of a victim and tying him up constitutes the use of actual violence to him.

R v Carney (1922) 18th December (unreported), R v Harrison (1930) 22 Cr App Rep 82, R v Desmond [1965] AC 960 and Gathuri Njuguna v The Republic (unreported) considered.

Cases referred to in judgment:

Gathuri Njuguna v The Republic (unreported) Criminal Appeal No 526 of 1965, High Court.

Okethi Okale v The Republic [1965] EA 555, EACA.

R v Carney (1922) 18th December (unreported) CCA.

R v Desmond [1965] AC 960, [1965] 2 WLR 894; [965] 1 All ER 976, HL.

R v Harrison (1930) 22 Cr App Rep 82, CCA.

R v Israili Epuku s/o Achietu (1934) 1 EACA 166.

Solomon Mungai v The Republic [1965] EA 782, EACA.

Appeals

Joseph Wangangu and Kamau Macharia appealed against their convictions for robbery (Criminal Appeal Nos 659 and 693 of 1977) by the Resident Magistrate at Kiambu in Criminal Case No 239 of 1977. Kamau Macharia also appealed against an order of forfeiture made in respect of the vehicle used in connection with the offence. The facts are set out in judgment of the court.

SM Otieno for the Appellant Kamau Macharia.

Mrs S Chana State counsel for the Republic.

East African Power and Lighting Co Ltd v The

Attorney-General

High Court, at Nairobi 24th, 25th. 26th, 27th, 31st October;

Muli J 1st, 2nd November; 16th December 1977

Landlord and tenant - agreement for lease - entry into possession following agreement - nature of tenancy following entry and payment of rent - monthly tenancy or tenancy at will - essential elements of lease not agreed - Transfer of Property Act (India ), section 106.

Where a prospective tenant is permitted to occupy premises in anticipation of the execution of a formal lease but all the essential elements of the lease have not been agreed, section 106 of the Transfer of the Property Act (India) has no application and, even though the prospective tenant may pay rent, the relationship between the parties is that of a tenancy at will.

Rogan Kamper v Lord Grosvenor (No 2 ), page 123, ante, distinguished.

Cases referred to in judgment:

Birsingh v Khetia [1967] EA 741, High Court of Tanzania.

Rogan Kamper v Lord Grosvenor (No 2 ), page 123, ante.

Walsh v Lonsdsale (1882) 21 Ch D 9, CA.

Action

The East African Power and Lighting Co Ltd instituted proceedings against the Attorney-General (Civil Case No 2687 of 1975 ) representing the National Social Security Fund in which it claimed rent, car-parking and service charges, excess rates and the costs of redecoration of premises occupied by the National Social Security Fund. The facts are set out in the judgment.

KA Fraser (instructed by Messrs Hamilton, Harrison & Mathews) for the Plaintiff.

MM Ole Keiwua State counsel for the Attorney General.

Cur adv vult.

Karibu House (1973) Ltd v Travel Bureau Ltd

High Court, Nairobi

14th December 1977

Kneller and Chesoni JJ

Civil Appeal No 60 of 1976

Appeal – jurisdiction of appellate tribunal – allowing appeal – circumstances in which appeal may be allowed – appeal from Business Premises Rent Tribunal.

On an appeal from the Business Premises Rent Tribunal the High Court is obliged to deal with all the material before it, balancing that for one party against that for the other, and paying due regard to the decision against which the appeal is brought. Unless it is established to the satisfaction of the appellate court that the tribunal has erred by mistake in law, by disregarding principle, by misapprehending fact, by considering irrelevant matters, by failing to exercise a discretion, by employing an obviously unjust method, by disregarding relevant matters, or by paying undue regard to some factors and not enough to others (or some combination of these points), there are no grounds on which it can properly interfere with the decision of the tribunal.

Dictum of Edmund Davies LJ in Sagnata Investments Ltd v Norwich Corporation [1971] 2 All ER 1441, 1457, applied

Cases referred to in judgment:

1. Bosworth, The [1960] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 173, England CA.
2. Kay (John) Ltd v Kay [1952] 2 QB 258, [1952] 1 All ER 1813, England CA.
3. Mbuni Drycleaners Ltd v Barclays Bank DCO [1972] EA 188 Wicks and Chanan Sigh JJ.
4. Sagnata Investments Ltd v Norwich Corporation [1971] 2 QB 614; [1971] 3 WLR 133, [1971] 2 All 1441, England CA.

Appeal

Karibu House (1973) Ltd appealed to the High Court (Civil Appeal No 60 of 1976) against the decision of the Business Premises Rent Tribunal at Nairobi on 16th June 1975 in which the respondent to the appeal, Travel Bureau Ltd, was ordered to pay Shs 4000 rent to the appellant for premises which it occupied in Nairobi.

Advocates

DH Khanna for the Appellant.

VM Patel for the Respondent.

Rogan-Kamper v Lord Grosvenor (No 3)

Court of Appeal, Nairobi 13th December 1977

Law JA (in chambers)

Costs - taxation - reference to judge - jurisdiction to alter quantum on reference - sum allowed manifestly excessive - instructions fee for advocate and brief fee reduced.

After consideration of the size of brief fees and instructions fees allowed in comparable cases and after making allowance for the effects of inflation the judge on a reference from a decision of a taxing master reduced the instructions fee from Shs 12,000 to Shs 8,000 and the brief fee from Shs 14,000 to Shs 10,000 on the grounds that the amounts allowed had been manifestly excessive.

Dictum of Buckley LJ in In the Estate of Ogilvie, Ogilvie, v Massey [1910] p 243, 245, Standard Bank Ltd v Mehotoro Farm Ltd (unreported), and Block v Commissioner of Income Tax (unreported) applied.

Cases referred to in judgment:

Block v Commissioner of Income Tax (unreported) Civil Appeal 11 of 1974.

D’Souza (SR) v CC Ferrao [1960] EA 602, EACA.

Grosvenor v Rogan-Kamper [1974] EA 446, EACA.

In the Estate of Ogilvie, Ogilvie v Massey [1910] P 243, CA Premchand Raichand Ltd v Quarry Services of East Africa Ltd (No 3) [1972] EA 162, EACA.

Standard Bank Ltd v Mehotoro Farm Ltd (unreported), Civil Appeal 54 of 1972.

Reference for taxation

Lord Robert Grosvenor, the respondent in Rogan-Kamper v Lord Grosvenor (No 2), page 123 ante, applied by reference to the judge for a reduction in the costs allowed to AW Rogan-Kamper, the appellant, by a taxing officer.

K A Fraser (instructed by Messrs Hamilton Harrison & Mathews) for the Respondent.

MR Pabary for the Appellant.

The Republic v Director-General of East African

Railways Corporation, Ex parte Kaggwa

High Court, Nairobi 14th, 16th, 22nd November 1977

Chesoni J

Judicial review - mandamus - application for order for payment of  judgment debt - damages for wrongful dismissal by East African Railways - application for mandamus to compel Director-General of Railways Corporation to make payment - no person holding office.

Judicial review - mandamus - discretion - bars to exercise of discretion - alternative remedy - judgment debt owed by East African Railways - assets of railways in custodial possession - committee appointed by Government to consider future - possibility of satisfaction of judgment debt by committee or in winding-up of railways.

Judicial review - mandamus - discretion - bars to exercise of discretion - ineffectiveness of order - judgment debt owed by East African Railways - railways without funds to meet debt - no holder of office empowered to make payment - East African Railways Act (Laws of East African Community, cap 18 ), section 91.

Judicial review - mandamus - discretion – bars to exercise of discretion - judicial interference with executive.

The East African Railways Corporation was established by the three partner States of the East African Community. It was funded by the regions directly; but for some years the regions had failed to remit funds and in 1976 the corporations’ current bank account was substantially in debit. One of the corporation’s employees, the applicant, was dismissed in that year (his dismissal being in no way connected with the financial position at the time) and in 1977 he obtained a judgment for wrongful termination of employment against the corporation for Shs 146,000 plus costs and interests. Following the judgment the applicants advocate wrote to the Director-General of the corporation (as the officer empowered by the East African Railway Corporation Act, section 91, to pay any judgment debt) seeking payment. His letter was returned by the managing director of Kenya Railways stating that the whereabouts of the addressee were not known to him. The managing director of Kenya Railways had, in 1975, been appointed as Director-General of the corporation, but had declined to accept the position; instead he had been acting Director-General until 1977 when he took up his position with the Kenya Railways and vacated the position of Director-General of the corporation; since then, to the best of his knowledge, there had been no fresh appointment to the position of Director-General. The applicant maintained that both the corporation and its Director-General were still de jure in existence, although the corporation’s assets in Kenya had been taken into the custodial possession of the Kenya Government and a committee had been formed to discuss and deal with the assets and liabilities of the former East African Community and its institutions and corporations; unless the applicant could obtain satisfaction for his judgment soon, he might be deprived of his fruits. He therefore applied for an order of mandamus against the Director -General for the payment of his judgment debts and taxed costs, and for the attachment and sale of the corporation’s property in execution.

Held:

Refusing the application, that mandamus did not lie as a matter of course against a public officer and the court discretion would be exercised against the applicant because (1) there being no person de facto in the office of the Director-General, it could not properly be said that there had been a failure or refusal by the Director-General to perform a public duty; (ii) the applicant had an alternative remedy by seeking satisfaction either from the committee or in any eventual winding up of the corporation; (iii) without there being de facto a Director-General of the corporation there could be no adequate supervision of an order by the Court and, as the corporation was without funds, any order to make payment would be ineffective; and (iv) where, as here, there were bars on the exercise of the courts discretion to make an order of mandamus, although the bars were not absolute, the exercise of that discretion in favour of the applicant would constitute judicial interference with the executive arm of the Government.

Re Bristol and North Somerset Railway Co (1877) 3 QBD 10, R v Sarun (Bishop) [1916] 1 KB 466 and R v Dunsheath, ex parte Meredith [1950] 2 All ER 741 applied.

Shah v Attorney-General (Uganda) (No 3) [1970] EA 543 distinguished.

Cases referred to in judgment:

Bristol and North Somerset Railway Co (1877) 3 QBD 10; 47 LJQB 48; 37 LT 527.

Kaggwa v East African Railway Corporation (unreported), 11th August 1977, Kneller J (Civil Case No 2231 of 1976).

R v Dunsheath, ex parte Meredith [1951] 1 KB 127; [1950] 2 All ER 741.

R v Sarum (Bishop) [1916] 1 KB 466; [1914-15] All ER Rep 946; 85 LJKB 544; 114 LT 366.

Shah v Attorney General (Uganda) (No 3 ) [1970] EA 543.

Motion

George Nume Kaggwa applied to the High Court (Miscellaneous Civil Case No 209 of 1977) by leave granted on 21st September 1977 for an order of mandamus against the Director-General of East African Railways Corporation to enforce a judgment. The facts are set out in the judgment.

RK Mitra for Applicant.

JF Shields Principal State counsel and Mrs Onyango State counsel for the Respondent.

Morgan v Stubenitsky

Court of Appeal, Nairobi 10th November 1977

Sir James Wicks CJ, Wambuzi & Law JJ A

Sale of land - agreement - memorandum or note in writing – essential terms of agreement - ambiguity as to who was tenant under lease – no agreement as to duration of lease - Law of Contract Act (cap 23), section 3(3).

The appellants advertised their house in Nairobi in a newspaper at a rent of £175, but did not specify the duration of the lease offered. The respondent wrote to them, stating that he was employed by the World Bank and expected to stay in Nairobi for at least two years; he also stated that his employer would pay the rent on a six-month advance basis. The respondent’s wife called round to see the house shortly afterwards. She liked it and she wrote at the foot of the respondent’s letter that she agreed to take the house on 1st June and signed her name. The second appellant, who had shown her around the house similarly noted on the letter that she had agreed to let the house. She signed her name. There was no discussion, however, about the duration of the lease. Later, the respondent changed his mind. The appellants claimed damages from him for a breach of contract, but he pleaded that, in the absence of an agreement in writing in accordance with section 3(3) of the Law of Contract Act, there was no enforceable contract between them.

Held:

That there was no agreement in writing satisfying the requirements of section 3(3) of the Law of Contract Act since (per Wambuzi and Law JJA ) the alleged agreement was ambiguous as to who was intended to be the tenant and there was also uncertainty as to the duration of the lease, or (per Sir James Wicks CJ) it was impossible to state that the respondent had undertaken to pay the rent and, accordingly, he was not a party to the consideration.

No cases were referred to in the judgments of the Court of Appeal.

Appeal

MJE Morgan and Mrs Dorris Morgan appealed to the Court of Appeal (Civil Appeal No 30 of 1977) from the decision of Kneller J in the High Court, Nairobi on 13th January 1977 (Civil Case No 282 of 1975 ) in which he dismissed the appellant’s claim for damages from the respondent to this appeal, F Stubenitsky. The facts are set out in the judgment of Law JA.

P Le Pelley (instructed by Messrs Hamilton Harrison & Mathews) for the Appellants.

WS Deverell (instructed by Messrs Kaplan & Stratton) for the Respondent.

Michael Mukundi Thiong’o & another v The Republic

Court of Appeal for East Africa, Nairobi 27th October 1977

Wambuzi P, Law V-P & Musoke JA

Criminal law- accomplice - common purpose - abandonment of common purpose - intention - timely communication of intention – demanding property with menaces - demand for specific sum made after appellant had left premises.

The appellant and two other police officers arrested O at his restaurant. The appellant and one of the officers intimidated O in order to extort money from him. They went to a store where O handed an envelope containing Shs 100 to each of them. The appellant looked inside his envelope and walked out of the store in disgust. The other police officer, however, remained and demanded that O should pay Shs 5000. The appellant and the other police officer were convicted of demanding property with menaces and their appeals to the High Court were dismissed.

On appeal to the Court of Appeal for East Africa, the appellant maintained, inter alia, that he had withdrawn from the common purpose before the Shs 5000 was demanded.

Held:

dismissing the appeal, that the High Court had not erred in upholding the finding of the appellant’s guilt; the abandonment of a common criminal purpose required to be evidenced by a timely communication to the other party to the common purpose of the intention to abandon; and, although the appellant had had the opportunity to indicate to his companion that he had abandoned their common purpose, he had not done so.

R v Whitehouse (alias Savage ) [1941] 1 WWR 112, British Columbia

CA, applied.

R v Antonio Becerra (1976) 62 Cr App Rep 212 considered.

R v Tabulayenka s/o Kirya (1943) 10 EACA 51 explained.

Cases referred to in judgment:

Kagori v The Republic [1967] EA 427.

Okech v The Republic [1968] EA 508, EACA.

R v Becerra (Antonio) and John David Codrer (1976) 62 Cr App Rep 212, CA.

R v Patel (1946) 13 EACA 179.

R v Tabulayenka s/o Kirya (1943) 10 EACA 51.

R v Whitehouse (alias savage) [1941]1 WWR 112, British Columbia CA

Vaz (John Raymond ) v R [1961] EA 320.

Appeal

Michael Mukundi Thiong’o appealed against the dismissal by the High Court (Trevelyan and Platt JJ) at Nairobi on 4th January 1977 of his appeal (heard with that of Christopher Gitonga: Criminal Appeal Nos 529 and 721 of 1976 ) against conviction and sentence on a charge of demanding property with menaces. The facts are set out in the judgment of the court.

M Kilonzo for the Appellant.