Dilemma over unreceipted livestock sale

By Wahome Thuku

Sometime in May 1979, six heads of cattle were stolen from the homestead of Waswa in Kitale District. Two weeks later, two cows and two calves were recovered by police officers in the compound of a Mr Longo. He explained that two men, Peter and Lamilin, had brought the animals to him and that he had exchanged them for two of his own steers.

Longo was, however, arrested and charged before a Kitale magistrate’s court with two counts of stealing and an alternative count of handling stolen property. Longo put up a strong defence. His story was that Peter had informed him that they bought the livestock at a local trading centre. He had told him that receipts were only issued in auctions and not in the animal bazaar at the trading centre.

He called three neighbours and elders who testified that they had witnessed the exchange of the animals. They said they had been called by Longo to witness the exchange and after interviewing the other traders, they were satisfied that the deal was clean. They told the court that one of them had drafted an agreement between Longo and the two traders.

Producing receipt

Longo could not produce the written agreement in court but maintained that it had been produced in the previous case where he had been charged and later acquitted of presenting false documents. The magistrate believed his story and acquitted him of the theft charge but convicted him of handling stolen property.

The magistrate said he considered the excessive precaution during the exchange and failure by Peter to produce receipts as evidence of ownership. He reasoned that when the animals were taken to Longo, he had more than ample reason to believe they had been stolen. Longo was sentenced to seven years imprisonment.

Two weeks later, he was taken back to the same court and the magistrate ordered that he be put under police supervision for five years after completing the jail term.

His appeal to the High Court was dismissed and he appealed to the Court of Appeal. The case went before three judges in Kitale.

The State Counsel Bernard Chunga, doubted the legality of the police supervision order reasoning that the magistrate court no longer had any legal authority in the matter having delivered the first judgement.

Chunga further conceded that a person charged with handling stolen property was entitled to be acquitted if his explanation was reasonable and possibly true. In March 1982, the judges delivered the final verdict. What is your verdict?