The appellant was a public prosecutor in a case in which the accused was charged with careless driving before a magistrate of the second class.
The magistrate had decided to visit the scene and on arrival at the scene he had found that the appellant was not there. Later the appellant had arrived at the scene, offered an explanation and tendered an apology. The explanation was rejected and the appellant was dealt with for contempt of court.
Held:
(i) The appellant was not arrogant, impertinent or discourteous to court. Hence, the facts recorded do not constitute contempt of court as required by section 40 (1) and (2) of the Subordinate Courts Act (Cap. 45).
(ii) This was not a proper case for the appellant to be punished summarily.
(iii) The magistrate had exceeded his jurisdiction by imposing 14 days' simple imprisonment in default of a fine.
