R. v. Milambo Crim. Rev. 33-M-71; Jonathan Ag. J.

 R. v. Milambo Crim. Rev. 33-M-71; Jonathan Ag. J.

The accused was charged before a District Court with robbery with violence c/s 286 of the Penal code but convicted of indecent assault c/s 135 (i) of the Penal Code.

Held: (1) “Applying that decision [Ali Mohamed Hassani Mpanda v. R. (1963) E. A. L. R. 294] to the present case it is clear that indecent assault Is not a cognate offence to robbery as the latter is lacking in the element of indecency which is  vital aspect of the offence of indecent assault. It is also clear, I think that he substituted conviction was prejudicial to the accused as the charge of robbery did not give him notice of all the particulars on which the offence of indecent assault was going to rest.” (2) “It seems also that there could not have been substituted a conviction either under section 240 and 241 because common assault and causing bodily harm are not to may mind cognate offences to robbery.” (3) The conviction was quashed.