Doto s/o Luhende v. R., (PC) Crim. App. 625-M-68; 5/9/68; Mustafa, J.

Doto s/o Luhende v. R., (PC) Crim. App. 625-M-68; 5/9/68; Mustafa, J.

Accused was convicted of cattle theft contrary to ss. 265, 268 of the Penal code. Complainant had left a bull in a market place while searching for another animal which had fled. On returning, he found the bull missing. He later discovered it among some people who told him that accused (who was absent) had claimed ownership of the bull. When accused appeared, he claimed, in the presence of complainant, that the bull was his. Complainant called in the police.

            Held: The conviction is quashed. The evidence merely indicates that accused falsely claimed ownership of the bull. There is no evidence that he “took” the bull, as required by the definition of theft in s. 258(1) of the Penal Code. The word “takes” connotes asportation. But accused is not alleged to have moved or caused to be moved the bull from one place to another.