Dengwa s/o Masiku v. R., Crim. App. 58?-D-67, 8/11/67, Georges C. J.

Dengwa s/o Masiku v. R., Crim. App. 58?-D-67, 8/11/67, Georges C. J.

Accused was convicted of stealing certain property which was found in a house owned by on Ali Saudi. Accused ’s defence was that he did not live in the house and knew nothing about the stolen property.

            Held: (1) The trial court accepted Saudi’s testimony that accused had lived in his house for the last year. The court had failed to appreciate that since Saudi had an interest of his own to serve, in that if accused was innocent he was the most likely suspect, his testimony required corroboration. On examining the record the High Court found such corroboration. (2) The doctrine of recent possession was relied on to require the accused to explain how the stolen property came into his possession, which he refused to do. While 5 months had elapsed between the theft and finding of the goods in accused ’s possession, the goods involved were not common articles and were specifically identified by their owner. “In the circumstances ……. Te period of five months, though long, is within the period which would be considered recent enough to justify the (accused) being called upon to explain.[Citing Shabani Juma v. R. (1953) 20 E.A.C.A. 199] Conviction upheld.