The
accused person was convicted of kidnapping as defined in section 93(1)(a) of
the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23]….,.
The
facts of the case are that the accused and the complainant were
neighbours. The accused, on the 2nd of November 2012, at around
0630 hours, followed the complainant, who was on her way ...
The
accused person was convicted of kidnapping as defined in section 93(1)(a) of
the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23]….,.
The
facts of the case are that the accused and the complainant were
neighbours. The accused, on the 2nd of November 2012, at around
0630 hours, followed the complainant, who was on her way to school with some
pupils. The complainant is apparently a teacher and was on her way to
school in the company of these pupils. The accused approached the
complainant from behind and paced up until when he caught up with her. He
greeted the complainant with a harsh voice. The complainant asked the
accused person what he wanted and the accused demanded that she should
stop. The complainant quickened her pace, so did the accused, until he
caught up with her. The accused had an okapi knife. He then dragged
the complainant through the fields to his home where he pushed her into the
kitchen and sat on the doorway to stop her from escaping. He detained her
for 20-60 minutes. Meanwhile, the children that were walking with the
complainant had run in different directions and some of them advised the
complainant's husband of what had transpired. The complainant's husband then
came to the accused person's homestead and the accused attacked the
complainant's husband, assaulting him in the process.
The
accused person had previously been hauled before the Chief's court whereupon he
was ordered to pay three (3) beasts for adultery damages to the complainant's
husband. The accused had been charged with rape and kidnapping whereupon
at the close of the State case he was found to have no case to answer on the
rape allegations. From the accused's own defence, he had an affair with
the complainant who was a married woman. Whilst the complainant stated
that the accused was ordered to pay three (3) beasts for the rape by the Chief,
the accused stated that three (3) beasts were ordered as a result of consensual
sex between him and the complainant. The prosecutor conceded, in his
submissions to the court, that the Chief would most certainly have ordered the
accused to pay three (3) beasts for adultery as opposed to rape.
There
was obviously some background relationship and interaction between the accused
and the complainant prior to the kidnapping incident.
The
accused person is a 49 year old first offender, married with seven (7)
children. The accused's version that he was in love with the complainant
is supported by the Chief's order that he pays adultery damages to the
complainant's husband. Whilst the kidnapping charge is sustained by the
school child's evidence, it is clear from the facts that these two people had a
background and the accused had been punished for having an affair with someone
else's wife who is the complainant….,.
I
accordingly confirm the conviction.
