africa.law — Free African Legal Information

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA AT DODOMA APPELLATE JURISDICTION HIGH COURT CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 85 OF 1977 ORIGINAL CRIMINAL CASE NOo QOl OF 1976 OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF MBEYA DISTRICT AT MBEYA Before T. M. M. Kisugujila, Esq~., ••• • •• ·Senior Magistrate

.. •• • ESULU MALEHENGA •••.•• • ., • • • • • • 0 • ••• • • • •. • • • •• •-. • ~ APPELLANT versus . . . THE REPUBLIC ••••••'••'••o•••••••••o••••••••••e•• RESPONDE~ Charge: Robbery ~~i th violence "'c,ntr~~ey · te, sec:tic,~~s · 285 and 286 of· the l?enal Cede~~ I ' JUDGEMENT MAKAME, J. The evidence ui,,on which. the appellant, ESULU MALEHENGA, was.convicted.was brief and clear. He earned for himself a jail·term of seven years, which he ric::hly deserved. one night in March, 1976 in Mbeya District he forced his way into the house of PWl ALETUNAS SALUKOSI where he terrorised her and her daughter, PW2 A!.,ATUPOKA SEDUULA.; At the point of a panga he extracted from them Sh. 120/= cash and some garments. The same night the two ladies reported to PW3 NASSORO MBARAMILA,· a cell leader, who got in touc~ with another cell-leader for assistance •. The same night the appellant was traced to the house of his brother where he was arrested. In defence the appellant put up an alibi and said he had been sick in bed. As was the learned trial magistrate, I believe the two witnesses PWl and PW2 clearly saw and recognised the appellant, a fellow-villager, with the aid of a bright fire, especially as the verbal exchanges disclosed must have taken quite some time. The trial magistrate did not specifically address himself to the twin contention by the appellant that he had quarrelled with PWl !'er a piece. ''f land and that the testify- ·· ... ing cell-leader was intent on securing PW2's hand in matrimony. This omission does not, in my view, ·detract from the soundness of the conviction as I in any event do not believe the two assertions:;. The appeal is worthless and is accordingly dismissed. DAR ES SALAAM, .Ta.s,n.arv 4- , ()7A l""""-~~ (L. ·M MAKAME) :JUDGE

Judgment

.. •• • ESULU MALEHENGA •••.•• • ., • • • • • • 0 • ••• • • • •. • • • •• •-. • ~ APPELLANT versus . . . THE REPUBLIC ••••••'••'••o•••••••••o••••••••••e•• RESPONDE~ Charge: Robbery ~~i th violence "'c,ntr~~ey · te, sec:tic,~~s · 285 and 286 of· the l?enal Cede~~ I ' JUDGEMENT MAKAME, J. The evidence ui,,on which. the appellant, ESULU MALEHENGA, was.convicted.was brief and clear. He earned for himself a jail·term of seven years, which he ric::hly deserved. one night in March, 1976 in Mbeya District he forced his way into the house of PWl ALETUNAS SALUKOSI where he terrorised her and her daughter, PW2 A!.,ATUPOKA SEDUULA.; At the point of a panga he extracted from them Sh. 120/= cash and some garments. The same night the two ladies reported to PW3 NASSORO MBARAMILA,· a cell leader, who got in touc~ with another cell-leader for assistance •. The same night the appellant was traced to the house of his brother where he was arrested. In defence the appellant put up an alibi and said he had been sick in bed. As was the learned trial magistrate, I believe the two witnesses PWl and PW2 clearly saw and recognised the appellant, a fellow-villager, with the aid of a bright fire, especially as the verbal exchanges disclosed must have taken quite some time. The trial magistrate did not specifically address himself to the twin contention by the appellant that he had quarrelled with PWl !'er a piece. ''f land and that the testify- ·· ... ing cell-leader was intent on securing PW2's hand in matrimony. This omission does not, in my view, ·detract from the soundness of the conviction as I in any event do not believe the two assertions:;. The appeal is worthless and is accordingly dismissed. DAR ES SALAAM, .Ta.s,n.arv 4- , ()7A l""""-~~ (L. ·M MAKAME) :JUDGE

Esulu Malehenga vs Republic (High Court Criminal Appeal No. 85 of 1977) [1978] TZHC 26 (4 January 1978)

Judgment

Discussion

Esulu Malehenga vs Republic (High Court Criminal Appeal No. 85 of 1977) [1978] TZHC 26 (4 January 1978)

Judgment

Discussion