The accused were convicted on their own pleas of being in possession of Moshi without a licence contrary to the Moshi (Manufacture and Distillation) Act, 1966. The question for determination was whether the convictions could stand since the accused were changed with committing an offence under an Act not yet in force
Held: The proceedings are a because under section 1 of the Moshi (Manufacture and Distillation) Act, 1966 it is provided that, “it shall come into operation on such date as the Minister may in the Gazette appoint”, and the Minister had not yet appointed any date. The court distinguished this case from R. v. Iudo Parsad Jamietram Dave (1963) E.A. 65 where the accused was convicted of an offence under an Ordinance which at the time of the commission of the offence had not been brought into operation, thought it was subsequent to the commission of the offence, on two grounds: (1) In the latter case the particular provisions under which the accused was convicted in the new Ordinance were the same as those under the old Ordinance in every essential whereas in the instant case the new Act does not repeal and replace the Local Liquor Act, Cap 77 Supp. 44. (2) In the latter case the mis-citation of the Ordinance was not prejudicial to the accused since the material sections in the old and new Ordinance were the same in every essential whereas in the instant case the accused were prejudiced in being charged under the new Act since the penalty is heavier than in the old and extant Act.
