[2006] KEHC 476 (KLR)
The court found that the appellant was in actual possession of Rice field No. 1600 at the material time, had no legal right to be there, and prevented the lawful licensee, Eunice Wamiru Kuira, from accessing and cultivating the land. The trial magistrate was correct in rejecting the appellant's alibi defence and...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2006] KEHC 476 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Mary Nduta Juma; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nyeri
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 299 of 2000
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Judges
- GG Okwengu
- Legal Topics
- Forcible Detainer, Possession of Land, Criminal Burden of Proof, Land Disputes
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Mary Nduta Juma
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellant was in unlawful possession of Rice field No. 1600 contrary to section 91 of the Penal Code.
- 2 Whether the prosecution proved the offence of forcible detainer beyond reasonable doubt.
- 3 Whether the charge was fatally defective or properly framed.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the appellant was in actual possession of Rice field No. 1600 at the material time, had no legal right to be there, and prevented the lawful licensee, Eunice Wamiru Kuira, from accessing and cultivating the land. The trial magistrate was correct in rejecting the appellant's alibi defence and accepting the prosecution's evidence. The charge was properly framed, and the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for forcible detainer. The sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive and did not warrant interference by the appellate court. Accordingly, the appeal lacked merit and was dismissed in its entirety.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed in its entirety.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
18 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NYERI
Criminal Appeal 299 of 2000
MARY NDUTA JUMA ……………………………………... APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC ………………………………..……………… RESPONDENT
(Appeal from original Judgment and Conviction in District Magistrate’s Court at Wanguru in Criminal Case No. 621 of 1999 dated 14th August 2000 by Mr. S. M. Juma – D.M.I)
J U D G M E N T
Mary Nduta Juma (hereinafter referred to as the appellant) was tried and convicted by the District Magistrate’s Court at Wanguru for the offence for Forcible Detainer contrary to section 91 of the Penal Code.
It was alleged that between 27th August 1999 and 25th September at Unit 8 in Kirinyaga District being in possession of Rice field No. 1600 of National Irrigation Board Mwea, without any colour of right held possession of the said land in a manner likely to cause a breach of peace against Eunice Wamiru Kuira who was entitled by law to such land.
The trial magistrate having heard 4 witnesses for the prosecution and 3 witnesses for the defence believed and accepted the prosecution evidence that the licensee of Rice field No. 1600 is the complainant Eunice Wamiru Kuira who inherited it from her late husband Kamau Njoroge and that the appellant who was a sister to Kamau Njoroge in collaboration with some villagers forcibly took possession of the rice field and transplanted rice seedlings and prevented the complainant from having access to the said Rice field. He rejected the alibi defence of the appellant and found that she was not in Kiambu but was actually in the Rice field on the material date.
The appellant brought this appeal through Ndumu Kimani advocate who despite having been duly served with a hearing notice failed to attend court.
In the petition for appeal, the appellant contended that the offence was not proved beyond reasonable doubt, that there was contradictory evidence, and that the trial, magistrate erred in finding that the appellant was on the disputed land. It was also the charge was fatally defective.
I have carefully reconsidered and evaluated the evidence and I am satisfied that there was sufficient evidence in support of the misdemeanour of forcible detainer, as at the material time the appellant was in actual possession of the Rice field No. 1600, she had no right to be in the Rice field or to prevent the complainant who was the person entitled by law to the Rice field No. 1600 to access the same and cultivate the rice field.
I find that the charge was proper and that there was sufficient evidence to support the charge. The sentence imposed upon the appellant was not so manifestly excessive as to warrant the in the intervention of this court.
Accordingly I find no substance in this appeal and do dismiss it in its entirety.
Dated signed and delivered this 7th day of December 2006.
H. M. OKWENGU
JUDGE