The Appellant Bernard Juma Agutu was charged with the offence of damaging crops of cultivated produce contrary to Section 334(9) of the Penal Code.
The particulars were that on 13th February 2023 at around 08:00 hours at Awendo Township Awendo Sub County in Migori County the Appellant unlawfully and intentionally destroyed crops of cultivated produce namely sugarcane valued at Kshs. 467568/= the property of Sony Sugar Co Ltd.
The Appellant was convicted and fined Kshs. 50,000/= in default to serve one-year imprisonment.
Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence the Appellant lodged the Appeal herein vide Petition dated 9th April, 2024 on the following grounds:-
1. The learned trial magistrate erred in law and fact by convicting the Appellant of damaging crop of cultivated produce despite absence of evidence that the Appellant willfully and unlawfully committed the alleged offence.
2. The learned trial magistrate erred in law and fact by convicting the Appellant when the alleged offence was committed by a person who was not charged before the court.
3. The learned trial magistrate erred in law and fact by applying the principle of vicarious; liability thereby wrongly convicting the Appellant in a criminal case.
4. The learned trial magistrate erred in law and fact by convicting the Appellant contrary to the weight of evidence.
5. The learned trial magistrate erred in law and fact by convicting the Appellant despite material contradictions and inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case.
6. The learned trial magistrate erred in law and fact by convicting the Appellant of an offence he was neither charged with nor evidence tendered thereto.
7. The learned trial magistrate erred in law and fact by convicting the Appellant despite the Prosecution having failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt
8. The learned trial magistrate erred in law and fact by failing to evaluate and consider the Appellant’s evidence on his defense.
Directions were taken for hearing of appeal by way of written submission. But submissions by Appellant are dated 9th December, 2024 and filed on 19th December, 2024.
Upon service of the Appellant’s submissions the Respondent Counsel Ms. Ikol informed the court that they were conceding to the Appeal and were therefore not going to file submissions.
In consideration of the grounds of appeal, the evidence in the trial court and the judgment of the Trial Magistrate and in consideration of the concession by the Respondent this court allows the appeal. The conviction is quashed and sentence set aside.
Delivered dated and signed in Migori this 30th day of June, 2025.
The particulars were that on 13th February 2023 at around 08:00 hours at Awendo Township Awendo Sub County in Migori County the Appellant unlawfully and intentionally destroyed crops of cultivated produce namely sugarcane valued at Kshs. 467568/= the property of Sony Sugar Co Ltd.
The Appellant was convicted and fined Kshs. 50,000/= in default to serve one-year imprisonment.
Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence the Appellant lodged the Appeal herein vide Petition dated 9th April, 2024 on the following grounds:-
1. The learned trial magistrate erred in law and fact by convicting the Appellant of damaging crop of cultivated produce despite absence of evidence that the Appellant willfully and unlawfully committed the alleged offence.
2. The learned trial magistrate erred in law and fact by convicting the Appellant when the alleged offence was committed by a person who was not charged before the court.
3. The learned trial magistrate erred in law and fact by applying the principle of vicarious; liability thereby wrongly convicting the Appellant in a criminal case.
4. The learned trial magistrate erred in law and fact by convicting the Appellant contrary to the weight of evidence.
5. The learned trial magistrate erred in law and fact by convicting the Appellant despite material contradictions and inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case.
6. The learned trial magistrate erred in law and fact by convicting the Appellant of an offence he was neither charged with nor evidence tendered thereto.
7. The learned trial magistrate erred in law and fact by convicting the Appellant despite the Prosecution having failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt
8. The learned trial magistrate erred in law and fact by failing to evaluate and consider the Appellant’s evidence on his defense.
Directions were taken for hearing of appeal by way of written submission. But submissions by Appellant are dated 9th December, 2024 and filed on 19th December, 2024.
Upon service of the Appellant’s submissions the Respondent Counsel Ms. Ikol informed the court that they were conceding to the Appeal and were therefore not going to file submissions.
In consideration of the grounds of appeal, the evidence in the trial court and the judgment of the Trial Magistrate and in consideration of the concession by the Respondent this court allows the appeal. The conviction is quashed and sentence set aside.
Delivered dated and signed in Migori this 30th day of June, 2025.