Case ID:168834

Jacob Omondi Juma v Republic [2020] eKLR

Case Metadata

Case Number:

Criminal Appeal 8 of 2019

Parties:

Jacob Omondi Juma v Republic

Date Delivered:

03 Dec 2020

Case Class:

Criminal

Court:

High Court at Kisumu

Case Action:

Judgment

Judge(s):

Fred Andago Ochieng

Citation:

Jacob Omondi Juma v Republic [2020] eKLR

Case History:

Being an appeal against the Judgment and decision of the Principal Magistrate’s Court at Maseno (Hon. C. N. Oruo SRM) dated the 13th February 2019 in Maseno CMCCR No. 52 of 2016

Court Division:

Criminal

County:

Kisumu

History Docket No:

CMCCR No. 52 of 2016

History Magistrate:

Hon. C. N. Oruo SRM

Case Outcome:

Accused acquitted

Disclaimer:

The information contained in the above segment is not part of the judicial opinion delivered by the Court. The metadata has been prepared by Kenya Law as a guide in understanding the subject of the judicial opinion. Kenya Law makes no warranties as to the comprehensiveness or accuracy of the information

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA

AT KISUMU

HCCRA NO. 8 OF 2019

JACOB OMONDI JUMA......APPELLANT

VERSUS

REPUBLIC..........................RESPONDENT

[

Being an appeal against the Judgment and decision of the Principal Magistrate’s Court at Maseno (Hon. C. N. Oruo SRM) dated the 13

th

February 2019 in Maseno CMCCR No. 52 of 2016

]

JUDGMENT

The Appellant,

JACOB OMONDI JUMA

, was convicted for 2 offences, namely;

i. Count 1

– Burglary Contrary to Section

304 (2) of the Penal Code and Stealing Contrary to Section 279 (b) of the Penal Code; and

ii. Count 2

– Malicious Damage to Property

Contrary to Section 339 (1) of the Penal

Code.

1. In respect to Count 1, the Appellant was sentenced to 2 Years imprisonment. Whilst in respect to Count 2, he was sentenced to 1 Year imprisonment.

2. During the hearing of the appeal, the learned state Counsel, Ms Odumba conceded that the conviction on Count 1 was not safe.

3. As the Respondent pointed out,

Section 304 (2)

of the

Penal Code

prescribes the sentence for the offence of burglary.

4. When an accused person faces a charge of burglary, the charge should be founded upon

Section 304 (1)

of the

Penal Code

.

5. Therefore, the Respondent was right to have conceded the appeal in relation to Count 1.

6. I therefore allow the appeal in relation to Count 1, and quash the conviction in that respect. I also set aside the sentence.

7. Meanwhile, in relation to the conviction on Count 2, the Complainant testified as

PW1

.

8. He was the owner of the iron-sheet house, which he had built on his father’s parcel of land.

9. He testified that on the material day, he got to the scene and he found that the house had already been demolished.

10. He explained that when he got to the scene, the Appellant was with the co-accused, as they were removing the iron sheets and timber that had been destroyed.

11. During cross-examination,

PW1

clearly stated that he never saw those who destroyed the house.

12. Another notable feature of the evidence of

PW1

was that in his Statement, the 2 accused persons were neither named nor identified.

13. Considering that

PW1

said that the 2 accused persons lived within the same village as he, it would have been expected that if he had identified them committing the offence, he would have said so in his Statement which he recorded at the police station.

14. PW2

was the care-taker employed by the Complainant, to guard the structure which

PW1

built on the father’s land.

15. It is

PW2

who reported to

PW1

about the destruction of his house.

16. PW2

testified that he did not know the accused persons.

17. PW3

testified that he had identified the Appellant’s co-accused, as the house was being destroyed.

18. Secondly, he said that on the next morning, he saw the Appellant and the co-accused removing the iron sheets which had been destroyed on the night before.

19. Curiously, during cross-examination,

PW3

said that in the Statement which he recorded, he never mentioned the Appellant’s co-accused.

20. PW3

also said that he did not see the 2 accused persons taking anything from the scene.

21. PW4

was the Investigating Officer. He testified that it was

PW2

who told the police that he had witnessed the accused persons destroying the house.

22. When it is borne in mind that

PW2

testified that he did not know any of the 2 accused persons, I find that if the investigator relied on information from

PW2

, in order to arrest the accused persons, the case put forward by the prosecution is not sustainable.

23. Therefore, there is merit in the appeal in relation to Count 2.

24. Accordingly, I do hereby quash the conviction on Count 2, and set aside the sentence in relation thereto.

25. In the result, the appeal is successful. I order that the Appellant be set at liberty forthwith unless he is otherwise lawfully held.

DATED, SIGNED

and

DELIVERED

at

KISUMU

This

3

rd

day of

December

2020

FRED A. OCHIENG

JUDGE