Nkambi Matengo vs Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 59 of 1978) [1978] TZHC 349 (1 January 1978)

IN THE HIGH C0TOF TANZINIA AT DOD.OMA • AP7ELLATE JI3RISDIgT.ION CRIMINAL LPEAL No. 59 0 1978 3rig1naJL Criminl Ca.e No. 273 of 1977 of the District Court of Docloma District at Dodia) I'LiYEBI ILt.TEiTG0 . APPELL.L.NT versus THE REPUBLIC . - . , , . . . RESP0NDNT CFGE: Uattle theft clss . 265 & 268 of the Pen. Code. • J0NT1U.N 9 , J. The appeal has no merit and was admitted to hearing only because the lower court did not mäk3 a finding of age so as justify the sentencing of - the appellant under the Minimum Sentences Act • Thd complainants 19 goat a5pear to have been stolen . and two days later he traced tiree-of them . to a cattle auction being in the possession of tI-cc appellaht 2 his own nephew Unbeknon to the appellantphe appears to have then reported to the police and as the result Pr01 .. a po]ice constable accompanied him,to that auction to find the appellant still in possession thoe. three animals. The appellant,upon being asked admitted to them both that hoJ:i stol#en the anials from the. complainant. • Asked about the other goats he re:.1:d he had entri,sted them to Pw.4 10YAW20GA and offered to take ;hem to hin They found himand in the appellant 'a presence the witness said the • appellànt,had kept 19 goats at his house. He tok them there • and out of a big herd of goats the appellant picked out 14 goats saying they were the complinant's. The complainant himself confirmed they wereamong the stolen animals. Altogether the., those recovered were 17 goats Regarding the remaining two animals the' appellant explaino1 he had sold them for .shs. 140 and he duly produced sha. .13 as being part of the proceeds. The appellant in defence testified he had been found at the • auction but he had not been in possession of any goats. It is however not surprising that this was rejected by the trial court. He had confosed to the theft and to confirm the tith of such confessionhe,:LIäntified the complainant's goats from the hord. of Pw.4 This witness was himself clear those goats .had been brought to his herd br the appellant and such account went a long way to corroborate the repudiated. confession of the appellant. His petition raises nothing of substance but it is not insignificant thaf Jul ithe takes no issue on the - -

• 2 alleged confession. I note, however, that he complains the AW lower court woul1 not call his witnesses. But the record shows ham as having told the court he had no wihcsscs to call, so there can be PLO question of his witnesses not having been called. Olear2r, on the fäcts the conictionwas• evi'abie and I have no hesitation in rejecting the appeal gainst it The doctos report now to han 1 shows the appellant as being 20 years old. That Could put his age at the time of committing the offence, May, 1977 1 , at about 184 years. He therefore becaee the subject of the Minimum Sonbences Act, under which he was duly sentenced 1 Accordingly, the appeal isdisrnlèsëd inits entirety. P • M. JOIT THJ'I J1JDG-E. C, -.