Inosence s/o Pangras Nsunguru v. R., Crim. App. 56-D-68, 6/4/68, Georges C. J.

Inosence s/o Pangras Nsunguru v. R., Crim. App. 56-D-68, 6/4/68, Georges C. J.

Accused was convicted of housebreaking and stealing. The evidence showed that exactly Shs. 100/- had been stolen in the house, and the trial magistrate did not consider whether special circumstances would warrant the imposition of less than minimum sentence. The housebreaking charge had not specified the felony that accused allegedly intended to commit upon entering the premises.

            Held: (1) The particulars of a housebreaking charge should always specify the felony that accused intended to commit on breaking and entering. However, the error was not prejudicial in the present case. (2) Section 5 (2) (b) of the Minimum Sentences act gives the court discretion to impose a lesser sentence where “the value of the property obtained … does not … exceed one hundred shillings.” This language clearly gives the court discretion where the amount is exactly shs. 100/-. Case remitted for a determination of special circumstances.