Mahilane and Kulwa v. R. (P. C) Criminal. App. 305 & 306-M-70; 5/13/70 Mnzavas Ag. J.

 

Mahilane and Kulwa v. R. (P. C) Criminal. App. 305 & 306-M-70; 5/13/70 Mnzavas Ag. J.

            The appellants were convicted of cattle theft contrary to sections 265 and 268 of the Penal Code by a Primary Court. They appealed against the conviction and sentence to the District Court and their appeals were dismissed. They then appealed to the High Court.

                        Held: (1) “Although section 19(b) of Cap. 537 does not specifically required a district  magistrate to give reasons why he is confirming, reversing, amending or varying a decision of a primary court, it would be good practice for district magistrates to give reasons, if only in a short form, in support of their judgments.” (2) “Under Part VI, Section 28 (1) (2) and (3) of the primary courts criminal Procedure Code, if an accused person admits the truth of a charge the only duty of a primary court magistrate is to record the admission as nearly as possible in the accused’s own words, and then read his admission to him. Then the magistrate (or interpreter) and the accused sign the admission. After this the magistrate proceeds and convicts the accused of the offence and sentences him. In this case, the appellant pleaded not guilty to the offence. The prosecution brought four witnesses in support of the charge, and after their evidence each of the accused was asked to give his defence whereupon the appellant said – ‘Nakubali kabisa niliiba Ng’ombe kwa mlalamkaji had Itale, hadi chakulongo kumwekesha huko’. This can be translated into English as ‘I admit I stole cattle from complainant’s home and kept it at Chakulongo’. The above statement by the appellant is clearly an unequivocal plea of guilty to the offence and the primary court magistrate was entitled to accept it as proper plea of guilty to the offence charged.” (3) “Even if I accept the Republic’s argument that primary courts should read the facts constituting an offence charged to an accused in order to check if the accused admits them before entering a conviction based on a plea of guilty, such a step is clearly unnecessary where an accused changes his plea to one of guilty after he had heard all the necessary prosecution evidence implicating him with the offence.” (4) Appeals dismissed.