Robbery
Robbery is defined under section 285 TPC. The elements of the offence are:
1. That the accused stole something.
2. That at or immediately before or immediately after such stealing he used or threatened to use actual violence to any person or property.
3. With intent either:
a) To obtain or retain the thing stolen, or
b) To prevent or overcome resistance to its being stolen or retained.
The punishment of robbery is twenty years imprisonment, if it is simple robbery, if it is aggravated robbery the punishment is life imprisonment with or without corporal punishment.
1. It Must Be Proved That The Accused Stole Something
In this case it must be shown that there was taking. On top of that, the property must be handled over by the person threatened or at his request.
In the case of NURU AYUBU V. R. (1968) H.C.D. No. 279, the accused were convicted of the offence of robbery. They threatened to shoot the complainant unless he gave them Tshs. 600/- Complainant’s son, without a request from complainant, got the money and handed it to accused persons. Conviction for demanding money with menaces was substituted because the money was not taken from complainant or at his request but was given by his son.
2. It Must Be Proved That The Accused Formed Intention To Steal At Or Before He Used Or Threatened To Use Violence
If the intention to steal is formed after assault, that can’t be held to be robbery.
The case of MKWEPU V. R. T.L.R. (R) 108 is good illustration. In that case the accused met complainant, a woman and overtures to her, she rejected them, whereupon he seized her by the wrists, and as she struggled, he snatched her basket of food and clothing away from her and ran a short way into bush. He then invited her to come after him under no illusion as to his intentions, declined and went off in search of help. The accused was arrested the next day, but the complainant’s goods were not recovered.
“…It was held that, since at the time the accused took away the woman’s basket he had no intention of stealing it and that he did so in the hope that she would be enticed to follow him and further that he formed the intention to steal the goods after his refuse to enticing her into the bush had failed, he could not be convicted of robbery because the intention to steal was not formed at the time he assaulted her., A conviction for theft was substituted…”
Similarly, general belligerent behaviour in which theft is committed with no rational connection between the theft and belligerent behaviour is not robbery.
In MIDEREGE BEMEYE V. R. (1968) H.C.D. No. 74, the accused was convicted of robbery with violence. There was evidence that accused, while drunk, assaulted a number of persons in a pombe shop. After assaulting complainant, accused took complainant’s coat and walked away with it. On appeal:
“…Penal Code section 285 provides that any person who steals anything an uses violence to obtain or retain the thing stolen is guilty of robbery. Here, the actions of accused were not in order to obtain or retain the coat, but rather were part of generally belligerent behaviour which had no rational connection with the theft. Conviction for simple theft substituted…”
3. The Connection Between The Theft And The Violence Must Not Be Too Remote In Time Or Place In Relation To The Theft.
In the case of GATHURI NJUGUNA V. R. [1965] E.A. 583, the complainant had left his house at 7.00 am and while returning at about 9.00pm the same day, saw the appellant proceeding from the direction of his house carrying a bundle. On discovering that it was his house that has been broken into, alerted his neighbours and they set out after the accused that they found 500 yards away. The appellant resisted and hit the complainant with a club before being overpowered. On appeal the court said:
“…We think that the essence of the offence of robbery is an openly committed theft from or in the presence of someone or a theft where the offender is caught more or less in the act or immediately after the act. We do not think it extends to a case such as this where the offence was committed clandestinely without discovery or chase until after the offender had left the premises and had proceeded so far in his way as he had in this case without being discovered to be a thief. A conviction for burglary and theft was substituted…”
In the case of MKWE LAKIMOJA V. R. (1967) H.C.D. No. 372, Mkwe stole a tin of millet from a pombe club. The owner returned and searched for the tin, but could not find it. Shortly thereafter the club watchman found accused carrying the tin outside the club. A struggle ensured in which the appellant assaulted the watchman before being overpowered.
The use or threat of violence must not only be for the purpose of
Ø obtaining or
Ø retaining the thing stolen,
But must occur (i) at
(ii) Immediately before or
(iii) Immediately after the time of theft.
In this case the search intervened between the theft and assault imposed. The conviction for robbery quashed conviction for stealing and assault imposed.
In MAGATI s/o MCHOYA V. R. (1968) H.C.D. No. 375, the accused was convicted of robbery with violence. The village headman and others discovered his wife illegally brewing Moshi. When they arrested her, the accused seized a bicycle and briefcase belonging to the headman and pulled out a knife, saying that if the headman could take his wife he would take his bicycle. When the wife was taken away, the accused took away, the articles into his house. The headman later recovered them. On appeal:
“…Conviction quashed. “As to he detaining of the bicycle and the briefcase, the appellant’s motives were to exert pressure to have his wife freed by detaining them temporarily.” He did not intend to deprive the headman permanently of them, so there could be neither theft nor robbery…”
In SAYALE SELIANI V.R. (1968) H.C.D. No. 243, the three accused were convicted of robbery. They were in the process of beating complainant when his watch fell or was torn off his wrist, whereupon one of the accused pocketed it. On appeal:
“…Section 285 TPC “…” The purpose must be to steal something. Here the taking of the watch was incidental to the assault. Convicted of causing actual bodily harm…”
The issue of an extent of violence used is immaterial; the fact that very little violence was used should be a factor in mitigation of sentence and not a defense to this offence. Even if little violence was used to overcome the complainant’s resistance to the theft that would amount to robbery. However merely snatching away property from a person unaware and running away with it does not amount to robbery.
On allegation that the accused threatened to use actual violence to any person or property, the threat need not to have to be uttered. General conduct may constitute threat of violence. It is equally immaterial that the accused did not take but was given the property by the complainant, so long as it is proved that the complainant parted with his property through apprehension of immediate injury to him or some other person or property.
Aggravated Robbery
According to section 286 TPC, robbery is aggravated if the offender:
Ø Is armed with any dangerous offensive weapon or instrument.
Ø Is in company with one or more person(s)
Ø Or at or immediately before or immediately after the time of stealing:
He wounds, beats, strikes or uses any other personal violence to any person.
Offensive weapon is either;
1) An article made or adopted for use or suitable for causing injury to the person better known as an offensive weapon parses. E.g. revolves, Knuckledusters, rifles, spear, bow and arrow, sword, matchet, club etc.
2) An article intended by the person having it with him such use-better known as “an offensive weapon sub medo. Offensive weapon sub medo are improvised instruments for use against the person. A razor for instance, is primarily meant for shaving but if brandished in a street brawl. it becomes an offensive weapon sub medo. In some circumstances, a stone might become an offensive weapon sub medo.
Demanding Property With Menaces
According to section 292TPC, a person is guilty of the offence who:
I) With intent to steal
II) Any valuable
III) Demands it
IV) From any person
V) With menaces of force.
The salient differences between demanding property by written threats and demanding property with menaces are:
Ø The former offence requires writing, it is not so in the later.
Ø The former offence allows the defense of reasonable cause for the demand. Whether there is reasonable and probable cause is a question of fact.
Ø The former requires proof of intent to extort or gain anything, whilst the latter requires proof of intent to steal any valuable thing.
Ø Demanding property with menace requires proof of menaces, which include:
· Threats to injure a person.
· Threats to injure a property.
· Threats to disclose improper behavior.
VAZ V. R. (1961) E.A. 320, the appellant a poor man, discovered in the course of his employment that there was an established practice authorized by his employers, removing tops of bales of cotton originating from a certain ginners and replacing them with tops marked to indicate that they originated from another ginnery. He collected all the evidence necessary to expose this practice. Having done so he demanded 20,000/= from his employers through their agents for keeping silent and restoring evidence that he had collected. He was charged with and convicted of demanding money with menaces with intent to steal.
“…The menaces or threats need not be uttered explicitly; it is sufficient if the menace, through veiled, is implicitly in the circumstances in which the money is demanded, so that an ordinary reasonable man would read the menace into the demand. whilst the menace must be calculated to (i.e. be of such a nature as to be likely to ) produced in the person menaced considered as an ordinary reasonable man, some degree of fear and alarm such as would unsettle his mind, it is not necessary to show that it did in fact induce such fear or alarm in him. In the event of menace proving unsuccessful, the test is whether, if it had been successful and the money been obtained in such a circumstances that it could properly be said to have been stolen; with particular attention to the questions whether it had been taken fraudulently and without claim of right…”
Honest claim of right is defective to a charge of demanding money with menaces with intent to steal. In the case of R. V. BERNARD (1938) 2 K.B 264, the complainant a married man agreed to pay his Hungarian mistress twenty pounds a month for one year. He failed to maintain these payments and the woman threatened to expose him to his wife and the public by means of an announcement in a newspaper unless he paid her forthwith money for eight months. She stated in evidence that she had taken the advice of a Hungarian Lawyer. In fact the woman has no legal claim to the money, she was charged for demanding money with menaces.
“…The woman had a defense if she honestly thought that she had a claim, even though she was wrong in so thinking…”
