Ngulila s/o Mwakanyemba, Crim. Rev. 48-D-68, 31/5/68, Duff J.

Ngulila s/o Mwakanyemba, Crim. Rev. 48-D-68, 31/5/68, Duff J.

Accused was convicted of buying a specified agricultural product contrary to section 13 (2) of the Agricultural Products (Control and Marketing ) Act, Cap. 486. In addition to a fine imposed, it was ordered that the produce involved be forfeited.

            Held: “Every forfeiture order should specify the authority under which it is made and should contain sufficient reasons to show that the magistrate applied his mind judicially to the question whether or not the order should be made.” In this case there was no provision authorising the forfeiture. Ordered that the value of the produce be refunded to accused. [But, of. National Agricultural Products Board Act, 1964, Acts 1964 No. 39, s. 5(1) which applies to the National Agricultural Products Board but not to other Boards and which provides: “In relation to the Board …. The principal Act shall have effect … (i) as if it were provided in section 13 thereof that … where a person is convicted of any offence contrary wither to that Act or to this Act, the court may order that any produce in respect of which the offence was committed shall be forfeit to the United Republic. “ --- Editors].