Alieu Baye Ceesay, the owner of Queenhead commonly called Queen Set Bar and Restaurant, has been sentenced by the Kanifing Magistrate Court for stealing a car. The court has imposed a fine of 25,000 and a default custodial term of one year. Additionally, Alieu Baye Ceesay has been ordered to pay compensation of D700,000 to Modou Lamin Bah, the rightful owner of the stolen car.
Alieu Baye Ceesay was charged with a single count of stealing a motor vehicle under Section 255 (A) of the Criminal Code. The incident took place on December 8, 2020, in Kololi, at the Kanifing Municipality.
The stolen vehicle, a Mitsubishi Pajero with registration number BJL 4247 P, was valued at D450,000. It contained valuable items such as two sunglasses valued at D15,000 each and a wristwatch valued at D17,000, resulting in a total value of the stolen property amounting to D497,000.
During the plea taking, Alieu Baye Ceesay pleaded not guilty to the charge. The prosecution presented their case by calling seven witnesses and submitting exhibits, including witness statements, a cautionary statement, a vehicle ownership certificate, and a police investigation report. In his defence, Alieu Baye Ceesay testified and called four witnesses, but did not provide any exhibits.
According to the prosecution’s evidence, one of the witnesses, Ebrima Sanneh (mechanic), stated that Modou Lamin Bah had asked him to check his car while he was in the UK, coming to The Gambia, which the accused stole from him.
Ebrima Sanneh further testified that Alieu Baye Ceesay had brought three cars to his garage for repairs. The accused gave him D10,000 to buy the necessary parts, and he repaired the other car and returned it to him.
Ebrima Sanneh testified that the accused informed him about a scrap Benz ML 330 and took him to see it. After finding a potential buyer for the scrap car, he (Ebrima Sanneh) called the potential buyer, Musa Scrap, who spoke to Alieu and offered D20,000, but the accused (Alieu Baye) did not agree to sell the scrap car at that price.
He (Ebrima Sanneh) then requested Alieu Baye to credit him the car and sell it at his asking price of D30,000, to which Alieu Baye agreed. Ebrima Sanneh said he sold the car to Musa Scrap for D25,000, with Musa paying D20,000 upfront, and Ebrima Sanneh remaining D5,000. He added that he (Ebrima) informed Alieu Baye about the sale, but the accused refused to accept the money, promising to give the balance later.
In his testimony, Ebrima Sanneh stated that he met Alieu Baye at Queen Set Bar, the accused allegedly forcefully attacked him took car keys and belongings belonging from his pocket and drove away with the came me came with belonging to one Modou Lamin Bah.
During cross-examination, Ebrima Sanneh reiterated his testimony and denied giving the car key to the accused as alluded to by the accused. He also stated that the stolen vehicle belonged to someone and he reported the incident to the police after Alieu Baye drove away the car with his belongings.
The defense filed a no-case submission, claiming that there was no evidence against the accused. However, the court overruled the defense and called upon the accused to present his defense.
Alieu Baye Ceesay testified that the car in question was given to him by his former mechanic, Ebrima Sanneh, and that Ebrima Sanneh had sold his car without his consent. He claimed that he had given Ebrima Sanneh D10,000 on two occasions to buy spare parts for another car. In return, Ebrima Sanneh promised to compensate him with a Pajero but failed to fulfil this promise.
Furthermore, Alieu Baye Ceesay stated that Ebrima Sanneh showed him where the Pajero was parked which drove away, but he never received the transfer of ownership. Instead, he gave the car to a friend to sell it as he needed the money. The accused stated that he did not give a statement to the police and only provided his name. He also stated that the signatures on Exhibit CS1 were not his, as he had only signed the front of the document.
The court carefully analyzed the evidence presented by both the prosecution and the defense. It concluded that the accused had taken possession of the vehicle without confirming its ownership and subsequently sold it to a third party without transferring the ownership to his name.
The court established that the vehicle belonged to Modou Lamin Bah, and there was no dispute regarding its ownership. The presiding Magistrate Mben Faal concluded that based on the findings, the accused was guilty of stealing a motor vehicle.
Senior Magistrate Faal emphasized that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution, who must establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. She noted that in criminal trials, the prosecution can rely on direct evidence, circumstantial evidence, or the confession of the accused. She added that in this case, the court deemed the circumstantial evidence strong enough to conclude that the accused intended to permanently deprive the owner of the vehicle.
Senior Magistrate Faal anchors that theft is defined in section 245 of the Criminal Code to mean; 1 “A person who fraudulently and without any claim of right takes anything capable of being stolen, or fraudulently converts to the use of another person other than the general or special owner thereof anything capable of being stolen, is said to steal that thing.
2. A person who takes or converts anything capable of being stolen is deemed to do so fraudulently if he or she does so with any of the following intents, that is to say;
a. An intent permanently to deprive the general or special owner of the thing of it;
b. An intent to use the thing as a pledge or security;
c. An intent to part with it on a condition as to its return which the person taking or converting it may be unable to perform;
d. An intent to deal with it in such a manner that it cannot be returned in the condition in which it was at the time of the taking or conversion;
e. In the case of money, an intent to use it at the will of the person who takes or converts it, although he or she may intend afterwards to repay the amount to the owner.
Senior Magistrate Faal said from the entire evidence presented by both the prosecution and the defence it has been established that the vehicle marked Mitsubishi Pajero with registration number BJL 4247 P was taken from Pw1 by the accused person.
Also, the said vehicle had remained in the possession of the accused person who has transferred such possession to a third party by way of a sale as alleged by the accused himself. She added that the accused transferred the possession of the vehicle without any transfer of ownership to his name.
Furthermore, Magistrate Faal stated that the said vehicle belongs to Modou Lamin Bah whose ownership of the same is neither challenged nor is there any evidence that such ownership has been changed, adding that the alleged sale of the vehicle was arranged by the accused before him reporting to the police station.
In delivering the conviction, Magistrate Faal sentenced the accused, Alieu Baye Ceesay, for stealing a motor vehicle, which is punishable by up to 7 years imprisonment. However, the defense counsel K. Jallow requested the court’s discretion to impose a fine instead, she referred the court to the High Court cases of The State vs Sannah Fadera and The State vs Jabbi and 13 ors in which the charges were treason and arson punishable with life but the courts invoked section 29 (3)
She sought the court to consider the accused’s role as a businessman who employed hundreds of staff, also a family man, and his medical condition.
After considering the plea in mitigation, the court decided to exercise leniency. Instead of the maximum sentence of 10 years, it invoked Sections 29(3) and 31 of the Criminal Code and imposed a fine of D25,000. Additionally, the court invoked Section 145(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code and awarded compensation of D700,000, as the car and the valuables inside it had not been recovered by the rightful owner.
The court stressed that failing to pay the compensation would result in a custodial term of 2 years, which would be served after the completion of any custodial term for defaulting on the fine payment.
Finally, the court reminded both parties of their right to appeal against the judgment and sentence.
By: Kexx Sanneh
