Maina, J.: Masudi Amlima is appealing against conviction for house breaking and D stealing, for which he was sentenced to imprisonment of five years in the first count and three years in the second count, to be served concurrently.
The complainant, Daileta Kalamula, told the trial court that on 4 May l987 she locked her house and she went to work in her shamba. When she returned to the house at about E four o'clock in the afternoon, she found the house had been broken into and her properties, mainly clothes, valued at shs.6895/=, were stolen. Her neighbour, PW3 Fabian told her that he had seen the appellant coming out of the house at about eight F o'clock in the morning carrying a bag. Fabian said in his evidence that he did not suspect anything because the appellant who is also a neighbour, was a frequent visitor to the house. The appellant was arrested after the matter was reported to Police. In his evidence Detective Cpl. Burhani said that the appellant admitted the theft. He sent the G Police and the complainant to various places where he claimed that the stolen properties were hidden. The appellant also named two persons to whom he had given the clothes. One of these persons denied any knowledge about the clothes. The other was not traced. None of the stolen properties were recovered. H
The appellant denied the theft, saying that he had been at a place called Sululu when the offence was commited. He said he was with his girl friend whose name he did not remember. He has said in the memorandum of appeal that the trial magistrate erred in convicting him on the testimony of a single witness. Section 143 of the Evidence Act provides that: I
Subject to the provisions of any other written law, no particular number of witnesses shall in A any case be required for the proof of any fact.
In this case the complainant's neighbour saw the appellant coming out of the B complainant's house. That was a single witness. The trial magistrate believed him. There is no law requiring that more than one person should be required to prove the fact that the appellant was seen coming out of the house. The evidence of PW3 Fabian was sufficient to prove that fact. The appellant was seen carrying a bundle, and the C complainant later found out that her house was broken into, and her properties were stolen. From Fabian's evidence, the irresistible conclusion is that the appellant broke into the house and stole those properties. That was sufficient evidence to base a conviction.
The appellant's defence of alibi was rejected, and properly so. He did not give the notice D required under section 194(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act that he intended to raise the defence of alibi. Furthermore, he did not call the person he claimed was with him at the time of the commission of the offence. The trial court, therefore, properly rejected the appellant's alibi. E
From the evidence on record, the learned trial magistrate considered what Fabian said and believed that evidence. Fabian knew the appellant and it was in broad day light. There is also the evidence that the appellant admitted the theft, and even showed the prosecution witnesses where the properties were hidden, although they could not be F recovered. The evidence, on the whole, leaves no reasonable doubt on the appellant's guilt. The sentence is the minimum under the law.
G Appeal dismissed.