In Lamu County, an unusual legal dispute over a pair of everyday tools—an ordinary knife and a wooden stick— captured attention for highlighting how context matters in law.
What could have seemed like a straightforward criminal case turned into a discussion of intent, circumstance, and the fine line between a legitimate tool and an offensive weapon.
The case began on the morning of July 4, 2025, in the Kijitoni area of Langoni location in Lamu.
Shee Hassan Ali, the accused, was intercepted by law enforcement officers while carrying a kitchen knife and a wooden stick with a metallic ring attached at one end.
According to police reports, these items were deemed potentially dangerous, and their presence raised suspicion of an intended criminal act, specifically theft.
Police officers on duty were escorting a suspect to a hospital when they noticed Ali with the items.
Upon questioning, he could not provide a clear explanation for why he had them.
The officers then arrested him, alleging that he was armed with the intention to commit a felony, in violation of Section 308(1) of the Penal Code, which criminalises being found with a dangerous or offensive weapon in preparation to commit a felony.
"Upon further search, a knife was found on the right side of his waist. He was then questioned why he had the 2 weapons, and he could not explain, and that is how he was arrested and processed for court, and now faces the charges at hand," the judgment stated.
The matter was brought before the Lamu Law Courts under Criminal Case E150 of 2025.
The prosecution presented two witnesses who testified to observing Ali armed with the knife and the stick.
They highlighted a context of reported thefts in the area, suggesting that such items were commonly used to facilitate these crimes.
The prosecution argued that the accused’s inability to explain possession of the items was indicative of preparation to commit a felony.
During cross-examination, Ali attempted to explain that the wooden stick was intended to guide his donkey. However, the witness clarified that no donkey was present at the time, undermining this defence.
The court also noted that mere possession of an item does not automatically constitute intent to commit a crime.
In its analysis, the court examined Section 308(1) of the Penal Code and relevant precedent, particularly Criminal Appeal No. 59 of 2000, Manuel Legasiani & 3 Others versus Republic.
The Court of Appeal in that case emphasised that “the word preparation is not a term of art. In its ordinary meaning, it means ‘the act or an instance of preparing’ or ‘the process of being prepared.’”
Applying this standard, the Lamu court scrutinised whether Ali’s possession of the knife and stick constituted a tangible preparation for theft or any other felony.
"In order to convict under section 308(1) of the Penal Code, this trial court must be satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused person was not only in possession of what has been described as “dangerous or offensive weapons” to wit a knife and a wooden stick, but must also demonstrate that there was some act tending towards what would amount to preparation to commit a felony," read part of the judgement.
The court noted that no overt act linking Ali to a specific criminal intention was presented. Evidence showed only that he was found with the items and could not explain their presence.
Further, the court considered the nature of the items themselves.
The knife, although categorised by the prosecution as potentially dangerous, was a standard kitchen knife. The wooden stick, while possessing a metallic ring, could serve multiple legitimate purposes, including guiding livestock or assisting with fishing—a common livelihood in the coastal community.
The court highlighted that context matters in interpreting intent.
As the judgment noted, it was plausible that the knife and stick were ordinary tools used in day-to-day life rather than instruments of crime.
The court also addressed the argument of potential danger.
It cited precedent from Mwaura & Others versus Republic (1973 EA 373), noting that “dangerous or offensive weapons” under Section 308(1) must be shown to have been intended or adapted for causing injury to a person.
Without evidence of such intent, mere possession does not satisfy the legal threshold for preparation to commit a felony.
Ultimately, the court concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Ali had engaged in any act indicating preparation for a felony.
While he was in possession of the knife and stick, there was no demonstration of intent or an overt act linking him to a crime.
Resident Magistrate Flavian Mulama stated: “The upshot of the foregoing is that the prosecution failed to prove the count facing the accused person. The accused person is thus acquitted of the charge facing him under section 215 of the CPC for the offence of preparation to commit a felony contrary to section 308(1) of the Penal Code.”
The case serves as a reminder of how everyday items, when removed from their context, can be misinterpreted as threats.
