Juma s/o Iddi v. R., (PC) Crim. App. 67-D-68, 10/4/68, Biron J.

Juma s/o Iddi v. R., (PC) Crim. App. 67-D-68, 10/4/68, Biron J.

Accused, a first offender alleged to be 18 years old, was convicted of housebreaking and of stealing goods valued by complainant at Shs. 101/-.The items, all used and some damaged clothing and household goods, were valued individually in the charge sheet, but not in complainant’s testimony. No finding was made by the magistrate as to accused ’s age. Accused was sentence to 2 years 24 strokes, under the Minimum Sentences Act.

            Held: The magistrate was obliged to make a specific finding as to accused ’s age, to be sure that he was not a young person and thus outside the ambit of the Act. (2) A specific finding is also required, in such cases, as to the value of the goods. Here, complainant’s valuation was Shs. 1/- more than the amount which would have enabled the court to grant leniency. (3) The accused ’s age, in this case, is itself “special reasons within the meaning of the ….act.” Sentence reduced to result in immediate release. Alexander s/o Ngimna v. R., Crim. App. 95-D-68, 5/4/68, Biron J. Accord, that specific finding must be made on all grounds of leniency specified in section 5(2) of the Act.