Kampala- Buganda Road Magistrates Court has convicted a businessman Dick Kizito and asked him to pay a fine of Shs4 million and in defaulting, serve four years in jail.
On May 7, 2014, Mr Kizito was charged with theft, disobedience of lawful orders and breaking of shop number B01A, belonging to a one Mr Moses Besimira.
In a judgment read by Chief Magistrate Lillian Bucyana, Mr Kizito, the proprietor of Kizito Towers in Kampala, was convicted basing on evidence from six witnesses, who helped in proving the case beyond reasonable doubt.
“On the count of disobedience of lawful orders, court found that it was not disputed that the Chief Magistrates Court of Mengo presided over by the Principle Magistrate Grade One issued interim order dated May 10, 2013, extended to May 17, 2013.
The extended interim order was to remain in force until the interparty application was heard. A temporally injunction dated May 28, 2013 was granted,” the judgment reads in part.
“The orders were admitted in evidence undisputed and marked PExhibit 6. By these orders, the respondent (Kizito) was stopped from trespassing or disturbing Mr Besimira’s possession and further stopping him from selling, disposing of or alienating developments in shop no. B 01A.
Prosecution proved the first ingredient to the required standard,” the judgment reads.
In respect to shop-breaking, based on a testimony from the third prosecution witness (Pw3), the accused (Kizito) brought men who cut the padlocks of Mr Besimira’s shop, entered the shop and carried items.
The second witness (Pw2), who had left his merchandise there a day before found the accused and others carrying the merchandise and rang Mr Besimira. In the resolutions of the counts above, I find as fact that the accused’s alibi is false and grossly contradicts that of Pw2. For the same reasons, I find evidence of breaking and entering proved to the required standard,” the judgment reads.
Furthermore, as regards theft, items subject of theft are money and stock that was in the shop.
Section 253 of the Penal Code Act lists items capable of being stolen to include every inanimate thing, which is property of any person and which is moveable.
Mr Kizito’s defence did not dispute that money and shop items are capable of being stolen. It is also not dispute that these, belonged to a named person (Besimira), the complainant.
On the issue of compensation, the court ordered that since the parties still have a pending civil suit, the issue of compensation shall be dealt with later.
Mr Kizito opted to pay the fine of Shs4 million to secure his freedom.