Makau v The Queen (Criminal Appeal No. 293 of 1956) [1956] EACA 17 (1 January 1956)

Outlying Districts Ordinance (Cap. 44) S.7-Contents of charge.

The appellant was charged with the offence of remaining in a closed district after withdrawal of his licence, contrary to section 7 of the Outlying Districts Ordinance (Cap. 44). He pleaded “It is true I had no pass” and was convicted. There was nothing to show that the area in which the accused was found was a closed district or that he was a person who required a licence to be in it.

Held (29th December 1956):

1. It is a necessary ingredient of the offence of remaining in a closed district after withdrawal of a licence that:

   • The area referred to is a closed district; and

   • The accused is a person who requires a licence to remain in it.

2. These averments must be charged and explained to the accused. This was not done; and the plea was not, therefore, an unequivocal plea of guilty.

Cases considered:
R. v. Yonanasi (9 E.A.C.A. 65); Byarafu v. R. (1950) 17 E.A.C.A. 125; Makindi Muvua and another v. The Queen (Cr. App. 198 of 1956, E.A.C.A.).