Hamisi Mayala v. R. Crim. Rev. 69-M-71; 7/1/72; Kisanga, J.

 

Hamisi Mayala v. R. Crim. Rev. 69-M-71; 7/1/72; Kisanga, J.

The accused was charged with assault causing actual bodily harm contrary to section 241 of the Penal Code. In reply to the charge he said: “I did beat him (the complainant) and he beat me too. We fought.” The trial magistrate entered this as a plea of not guilty. After a number of adjournments the case eventually came up for hearing before another magistrate. P.W. 2 said that the complainant aimed blows with his first at the accused but these blows missed the accused who dodged them successfully. Accused then beat the complainant on the lips and inflicted an injury which caused bleeding form the mouth. When this witness concluded his evidence the accused said: “I beat this man (the complainant) for fear that he was going to assault me. I agree that I beat him unlawfully.” The trial magistrate then proceeded to convict the accused on his own plea and sentenced him accordingly.

            Held: (1) “It is clear from the evidence …. That the accused was assaulted by the complainant. In his plea the accused said that he beat the complainant for fear that the complainant was going the assault him. To my mind the facts clearly raise the issue of self-defence. The accused agreed that he beat the complainant unlawful, but it was for the court to decide whether in law the conduct of the accused was unlawful. The law is clear that where a person is being assaulted it is a good defence if he strikes his assailant in self-defence subject, however, to the requirement that he must retreat, if possible, and that the force used was only such as was necessary to the defence. In the circumstances of this case, therefore, I am of the view that it cannot be said that the plea of the accused was unequivocal because the accused may have inflicted the injury on the complainant in circumstances which in law amounted to self-defense. The proper course to take was to proceed with the trial and after all the evidence was received then the trial magistrate should decide whether the allegation of self-defence was maintainable.” (2) Conviction quashed and sentence set aside.