Kahumbila Mgalula v. R., Crim. App. 16-M-67; 23/3/67; Platt, J

Kahumbila Mgalula v. R., Crim. App. 16-M-67; 23/3/67; Platt, J

Accused was convicted of cattle theft under the general theft provision of the Penal Code (P.C. s. 265), and the provision dealing specifically with cattle theft (P.C. s. 268). The latter section provides for an enhanced sentence. Accused was sentenced to three years imprisonment and twenty-four strokes.

Under section 265, and to a concurrent sentence of twelve months under section 268.

            Held: “Cattle theft is ….. charged under section 265 and 268 of the Penal Code and requires only one sentence to be passed, “since cattle theft is an “ aggravated form” of the “substantive offence” of theft. The concurrent sentence was set aside as “superfluence”.

            The Court stated, obiter: (1) “(1) t would be better in future cases to record the exact value based on such evidence as that of …… the owner” of property stolen. (2) “(T) he learned magistrate should always record the age of the accused.” Here, the authorities concerned had certified that the accused was 40 years of age, and the sentence under the Minimum Sentences Act was upheld.