Facts
The appellant and the complaint had a dispute over a plot of land, each claiming ownership. When the appellant entered the suit plot and cut down some trees he was charged with and
convicted of criminal trespass. On appeal the High Court considered whether the defence of
bona fide claim of right was not open to the appellant, whether in the circumstances it was
proper to convict of criminal trespass and what the court should do in such cases.
Held: (i) Since this case boils down to a dispute of ownership of the shamba which is the subject matter of these criminal proceedings it seems that this is a clear defence of bona fide claim of right.
(ii) it is wrong to convict a person for criminal trespass when ownership of the property alleged to have been trespassed upon is clearly in dispute between the complainant and the accused.
(iii) when in a case of criminal trespass a dispute arises as to the ownership of the land the court should not proceed with the criminal charge and should advise the complainant to bring a civil action to determine the question of ownership - Saidi Juma v R [1968] H.C.D 158.
Case Information
Appeal allowed
No comments:
Post a Comment