Khalid v. R. Crim. App. 716-M-70; 18/5/71; Mnzavas Ag. J.

Khalid v. R. Crim. App. 716-M-70; 18/5/71; Mnzavas Ag. J.

The appellant was convicted of contempt of court. He was a party to a civil suit in which a disputed piece of land was awarded to his adversary. A few days after he was found cultivating the same piece of land and was charged with contempt. He explained that he had cultivated the land because his appeal to the District Court was still pending and that after judgment the land had been allocated to him by the local TANU committee. This was taken as a plea of guilty. It was argued on appeal that the facts did not disclosed the offence because it was not show whether the appellant used to live on the land before judgment and continued to live there after judgment or whether he simply proved there after judgment. If it was the former, he could not be said to be guilty of contempt.

Held: (1) (Citing SAMWEL S/O BURINI v. R. [1967] H. C. D. 337) “I tend to agree ……. That the facts as shown on the record are not compatible with a charge under section 114 (1) (h) (Penal Code). To support a conviction under this section it must be shown that the accused had retaken possession of the land from Mpule after he had obtained judgment from the primary court in his favour.” (2) “The conviction would have been proper if the charge was brought under section 114 (1) (i).” (3) Conviction set aside; Appeal allowed.