Jacob v. R. Crim. App. (P) 107-A-70; 21/5/70; Bramble, J.

 Jacob v. R. Crim. App. (P) 107-A-70; 21/5/70; Bramble, J.

The appellant was charged in the Machame Primary Court with an offence under Section 233 (d) of the Penal Code. The section reads as follows:- Any person who in a manner so rash negligent as to endanger human life or to be likely to cause harm to any other person omits to take precautions against any probable danger from any animal on his possession is guilty of a misdemeanor.’ The facts admitted were that cattle, which the appellant was grazing, strayed and damaged some maize plants. The appellant denied that the maize was the property of the complainant. The trial magistrate wrongly accepted this as a plea of guilty.

            Held: (1) “The main facts did not disclose the offence for which the appellant was charged, the essence of which was endangering human life or creating the possibility of causing harm to a person. Harm here has a specific meaning. It is defined by the ordinance as “bodily hurt, disease or disorder whether permanent or temporary. Damage to property is not, therefore, harm within the meaning of the section” (2) “Assuming that the appellant had made a plea of guilty the court should not have accepted it after the facts were given since they did not disclose any criminal offence. An order was made for compensation and this was wrong from the fact that the ownership of the maize was not established and that no offence had been committed.” (3) “The conviction cannot be supported and I allow the appeal, quash the conviction and set aside the sentence and the order for compensation. The complainant may properly claim damages in a civil action.”