Sebastian Chanza vs Republic (HC Criminal Appeal No. 373 of 1977) [1978] TZHC 186 (19 April 1978)

fa.FPELLhTE JURISDICTION HICH COUF.T CRl"iINAL f..FfE.i;L N.Oo 373 OF 1977 ORIGINl!L ·cRI\fINJ,L Cf..SE NO. 288 CF 1976 OF 'I-I-iE DIS~:RICT COURT OF' SENGERE'ft. DISTRICT NI' SE'lGERE 1 H~ BEFORE' ."f. S. KlBIBI, ESQ.: DISTRICT '1J;GISTRi.-TE , - .·-·· . .. . . SEBiiSTll:N CH,'\NZli . . . ..... ' . • ti " • •• 0 • .versus . . ·• .. . . . . . .. . . . . APPELL.i-il\T THE RE'Pl.J13LI C : f • 0 C . . . . . . . . .•. : . • • 1'.ffSPONDE.NT JUDGh!JJENT J'IF bLILi-i, J. : The appellant Sebasti.:m Chanza 1as ccnvicted of cat.tls thert at the district court Sengerena and was sentenced to five yeas npiscinnent. The case against hin was that he stole one cow belonging to the coplainarit wonan Anastazia /o Sagala - who told the trial court that wnen she woke up during the nornng _on 4/11/76 1 _she discoverd th,.d one of her cows was !Tli!;!sing. She _;i..n:riediately rcpo,rted tc the cell leuder and later left for Sengerena ca.ttle 11arket to look for her 11issing cow. Indeed 2:s expected she sa her stolen cow at the narket with a certain nan who clc,i -ned to have bought it fro:ri one Paul Luke za (Pi'I 2). ,hen Luke za was traced he agreed selling the cow to this nan but said th8t he had hinself bought it fro:ri the appellant. he appellant was traced and charged. The appellant's defence was that he had in fact bought the cow fro11 the co!Tlplainant he:r;self for Shsn 480/"" ond th,t this sale was net only witnessed by the co11plainant:s relative the 2nd accused at the trial, but was reduced to writing. But the 2n(. . ccused denied any such know~~.dge, and the appellant could not produce tne written reco:rd cf this sale. He says in his ne'llorandun of appee1l that he could not- have produced it because it was at ho'lle., 'l:he tr;iel nagistrc;;te r.ejected thi°s story and convicted hi'llo The appellant' ;S defence 11ust surely b_e false, li:'.irst he failed- to .. ask the 2nd accused any EIUe stion tott,_ohing on th:j_s sale. Secondly he did not produce the so called written trunsaction of the sale., If. ihdeed:- there was suc.h a chi:t, he could have asked the. court for permission to . . . . : . . . " . :; to and get it fro11 ho:ne. He nade no such application., Lastly the co-nplainant hnastazia is net a ned wo11an to have. co:riplainedabbut·the theft of a cow she had 11:;rself sold._ F'<;>r all these rasons I an satisfied that t.q.e _appel;lnt_ stol., thi_a .cow and that threfore .he was- rightly .. - . . . ;, '. - . . :. ·· -~ - ' ... ·, . . . convicted. The appeal is accordingly dis11issed. Deliyered _in court at ~wanza this.19th Aay of:ipril, 1978. • 'l'UNU 19TH jPRIL, 1978 _ .;,,_,:. ,,,,:.' L. ""F·ALIL·f; JUDGE> _ ___,,-.--- -- -- ~ -.< ..