Nuru s/o Ayubu v. R., Crim. App. 35-M-68, 15/5/68, Seaton J.

Nuru s/o Ayubu v. R., Crim. App. 35-M-68, 15/5/68, Seaton J.

Accused ’s were convicted of robbery with violence. (P.C. ss. 285, 286) There was evidence that they went to complainant’s house and threatened to shoot him unless he gave them Shs. 600/- Complainant’s son, without a request from complainant, got the money and handed it to a third accused (who was acquitted ) who gave it to the accused involved in this appeal. The issue before the Court was whether the crime amounted to robbery with violence or demanding property with menaces (P.C s. 293).

            Held: (1) Robbery involves a taking of property Demanding property with menaces, if it does not succeed, requires that the property could be said to have been stolen if the menaces had succeeded. [Citing John Raymond Vaz v. R., (1961) E.A. 320]. (2) In the present case, there was a taking of the property even though it was delivered into accused ’s hands [Citing Gathuri Njuguna v. R., (1965) E. A. 583]. Thus, the menaces succeeded and it seems that this element of both offences was fulfilled. (3) A second distinction is that robbery involves an immediate threat of injury to person or property. On the other hand, demanding property with menaces may involve a veiled threat which is of such a nature that an ordinary reasonable man would read menace into the demand. (It is not necessary that the victim have subjectively felt such menace). [Citing John Raymond Vaz v. R., supra.] In addition, demanding property with menaces need not involve a threat of violence, but may involve a threat to accuse the victim of misconduct . [Citing John Raymond Vaz v. R., supra; Rex v. Fulbhai Jethabhai Patel, (1946) 13E.A.C.A.179] In the present case it seems that this element of both offences was fulfilled. (4) A third distinction is that for a conviction of robbery the property must be handed over by the person threatened or at his request [Citing R. v. Edward (1833) 1M. & Rob. 257, C. & P. 518; cf. R. v. Donolly, 2 East P.C. at 718] whereas demanding money with menaces may involve a taking from some other person [c.f. R. v. Cheshire (1864)3 N.S.W.S.C.R. 129 (Australia) English and Empire Digest, Vo,. 15, p. 875]. In the present case the money was not taken from complainant or at his request, but was given by his son. Convictions for demanding money with menaces substituted.