A court has acquitted a man who had been accused of assaulting an assistant chief during a raid on an alleged chang'aa den, finding that prosecutors failed to prove that the attack was intended to prevent a lawful arrest.
Malaba Resident Magistrate A.Z. Ogange on September 3 ruled that while evidence presented before the court showed that Kaliwa Assistant Chief Alex Olakitar suffered injuries during the incident, the prosecution did not establish the specific intent required to sustain the charge of assault with intent to prevent lawful apprehension.
The case pitted the State against Cholosi, who was accused of attacking the assistant chief on November 17, 2025, at Kaliwa Village in Teso North Sub-County, Busia County.
Prosecutors alleged that the accused assaulted the administrator while officials were conducting a crackdown on illicit alcohol sales.
Court records show that the operation began after residents informed Assistant Chief Olakitar that an illegal chang'aa outlet was operating in the area late into the night.
Acting on the information, the assistant chief contacted local Chief Gilbert Odera and a village elder before proceeding to the accused's home.
While testifying before the court, Olakitar said the situation quickly turned chaotic after they arrived at the homestead.
“One of my residents reported a chang'aa den that would operate until late,” he told the court, explaining that he mobilised local administration officers before heading to the scene. Upon arrival, he said, the accused became aggressive and attacked the officials.
The assistant chief testified that the accused struck him in the chest and kicked him on the right leg, causing injuries that later required medical attention.
“He assaulted me on the chest using blows and kicked my right leg,” the complainant testified. He added that authorities recovered 65 litres of chang'aa from the premises before taking the accused to the police station.
The prosecution's version of events was supported by Chief Gilbert Odera, who told the court he personally witnessed the confrontation.
“The accused person, on seeing us, got very violent and punched the complainant on the chest,” the chief testified, adding that they eventually subdued the suspect with the assistance of a village elder.
The investigating officer, Mary Wanjiru, also backed the complainant's account, saying a report was made at Moding Police Station after the alleged assault.
According to her testimony, the accused became violent when administrators arrived at his home during the raid and allegedly attacked the assistant chief with kicks and blows, causing pain and swelling. She said the accused was later restrained and taken into custody.
Medical evidence presented by clinical officer Gideon Baraza further bolstered the prosecution's claim that an assault had occurred.
The medic testified that he examined the complainant on the same day of the incident and noted pain and tenderness on the chest and right leg. He classified the injuries as soft-tissue injuries resulting from assault and recorded them as "harm" in the medical report.
“The injuries were consistent with kicks and blows,” Baraza told the court, rejecting suggestions during cross-examination that the injuries could have resulted from a fall.
However, the case took a different turn when the accused gave his defence.
Cholosi denied assaulting the assistant chief and instead claimed that he was the victim of violence during the operation.
According to his testimony, local administrators assaulted him, stepped on his neck, kicked him repeatedly and tied him up before ferrying him to the police station. He also alleged that money was taken from him during the incident.
“The assistant chief and nyumba kumi assaulted me by pressing on me, stepping on my neck and kicking me severally,” he testified. He further claimed that the local chief had a personal grudge against him and selectively targeted him during enforcement operations.
In analysing the evidence, the court found that the prosecution had successfully proved one aspect of its case: that the complainant had indeed been assaulted.
The magistrate noted that the complainant's testimony was corroborated by other witnesses and reinforced by medical evidence.
“The medical evidence lends independent support to the complainant's account of having been physically assaulted,” the magistrate observed in the judgment.
But despite that finding, the court determined that the prosecution had failed to prove the more critical component of the offence, namely that the assault was committed with the intention of preventing a lawful arrest or detention.
The magistrate pointed out significant gaps in the prosecution's evidence. The court noted that there was no indication that the assistant chief informed the accused that he was under arrest or that officials had made any overt attempt to apprehend or detain him before the confrontation began.
“There is no evidence that the assistant chief communicated to the accused that he was under arrest or that he intended to arrest him,” the magistrate stated.
“There was equally no evidence of any overt act of arrest, such as an attempt to restrain, apprehend, handcuff or otherwise detain the accused.”
The court further observed that, based on the evidence presented, the accused was only restrained after the alleged assault had already occurred.
“The evidence does not demonstrate that the accused person assaulted the assistant chief to prevent his apprehension; rather it demonstrates that the accused was restrained as a consequence of the assault,” the magistrate ruled.
While describing the accused's conduct as potentially reprehensible, the court said it could not speculate about his intentions and stressed that criminal liability for the offence charged required proof beyond reasonable doubt.
“The prosecution was required to establish a nexus between the assault and an intended lawful apprehension or detention. On the evidence before the court, that nexus has not been established,” the judgment stated.
Consequently, the court acquitted Cholosi under Section 215 of the Criminal Procedure Code, bringing the case to a close. The ruling underscores the importance of prosecutors proving every element of a criminal charge, especially where intent forms a central ingredient of the offence.
