The appellants were against the decision of
high court which dismissed their petition. The
appellants sought orders of court that the 1 st
respondent declaration as elected chairperson
LC5 be annulled on the ground that he was
convicted of offence of assault occasioning
bodily harm. Being dissatisfied appealed
against the order.
The court considered whether the learned trial
judge, on the evidence before him erroneously
found that the offence of assault causing actual
bodily harm the appellant was convicted of
was not a crime involving dishonest or moral
turpitude. The court held that for conduct to
qualify as a moral turpitude it must be extreme
and so heinous as to shock the moral sense of
the community. It is useless to think of whether
the crime is bad and what kind of punishment
issued. Therefore court has to determine. The
court further held that for a crime to qualify as
involving dishonest or moral turpitude, it calls
for some measurement of gravity, absolute
wickedness and must be shocking to a

particular community in which it occurred. The
court found that slapping, in a local council
heated debate meeting was not extremely
shocking to the community even though he
was convicted but did not fall within the
crimes which could disqualify an elected
person as a chairperson LC5.Therefore court
was justified that the trial judge did not rule in
error.
Accordingly the appeal was dismissed.