Salimu v. R. Crim. App. 282-D-71; 1/9/71; Mwakasendo Ag. J.

 

Salimu v. R. Crim. App. 282-D-71; 1/9/71; Mwakasendo Ag. J.

The appellant and two others were convicted of causing grievous harm c/s 225 of the Penal Code. he was sentenced to pay a fine of Shs. 200/- and in addition ordered to pay Shs. 50/= as compensation to the complainant. The facts surrounding the assault were that the complainant collided with the accuseds’ cattle. This resulted in the untimely distraction of one. Being incensed with anger they assaulted the complainant causing him to suffer grievous harm. On the appeal against sentence and order for compensation.

Held: (1) “The appellant’s complaints against sentence have no substance. He had no right whatsoever to resort to the jungle law of “instant justice”. Courts would be failing in their duty if they were not to discourage the brutality involved in this kind of practice by imposing deterrent sentences.” (2) “However, there remains the question. The learned magistrate ordered the accused to compensate the complainant in the total sum of Shs. 150/=. In so doing the magistrate seems not to have considered the issue of damages which the accused persons could claim from the complainant for the destruction of their head of cattle. As facts stand it is most likely that a claim for damages for the head of cattle would completely offset any award of compensation under section 176 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The better course would have been to leave all parties to pursue their civil remedies as they deemed fit.” (3) Appeal against sentence dismissed, order for compensation set aside.