John Kafipa vs Republic (HC Criminal Appeal No. 143 of 1972) [1973] TZHC 178 (12 April 1973)

IT c O:T, 0: o:::zPIaA AT Li7AU2,.A. • APPIATEmISDiC:TIN:.... ELGH COURT C[dHINAL APFEL NO.143 OP 1972 ORIGINAL CRILEN dASE NO 541 OP I97i.. OP THE ISTRIC COURT OP KIG-0171A DISTRICT AT I COMA — BEFORE: C • C-, LITENG-A ESQ., RESIDENT MAC-ISTRATE. b OHE ICAFIPA . . . . • . . • . .......... . . . . . • . . . . . . . . • APPELLAIIT • .:: (Original Accud) TIlE RE:PtJBLIC. ., .•. ...... • . . . . .......• • . • . . . • . • ... . RESPOND.E1TT (Orinai Prosecutor) CRARG-E — 1st Ct CQnveraon not amounting tO tc c/s 24 of • ne Penal Code. 2±d Ct: Conversion not amounting to thft c/s 284 of the Penal Code. 3rd Ct: Driving a motor vehicle on the Public road • . without due care and attention c/s 47(1)(a) • .

• and 70(2).. ct. No. 20/69 of theTraffi Ordinance. . S-- JDGE1LE Eri—KINDy, J. John Kafipa was charged with and convicted of conversion not amounting to theft and of driving a motor vehicle on the public road without due care and attention. Oti the foiner count, he was sentenced to iruprsonment for six months while on the latter court he was sentenced to a fine of shs. 2/= or 2 months imprisonment in default. He was also ordered to pay cpensaticn to the fine of shs 1 1 028/20. He appealed against con'v1ction, sentences, and orders. As I indicated, at the time of admitting this appeal, the appeal agatha convictions have no-merit. There was ample evidence-to support them The appellant, who was a police officer, was on duty at the police otaticn 7 Ujiji, on the 26th of May, 1971.0 The appellant reported duty at aboUt 10 p.ni. Amzr the driver of Oomworks, Ujiji, parked his employers vehiOlc I G.T.A. S 270 , at the said police station for tWe custodyand handed over the. iquition key to the appc1lant Thereafter, the appellant Was seen, by police consta'ol Majuto(BV2) and Abdalla (PV3), drive the said G.T.A. 270 from where it was parked. when he reversed the vehicle he biocked it against a hitchen wall, and at his second attempt, he biocked it against a Police sign post at the said police station. The appellant Omelt of liquor:. Having failed to drive the said vehicle, although he was qualified driver s he left it at the same police station. The vehicle was put there for safe custody 9 and ho had no authority to hako it. Therefore, his act amounted to cowe±sion not amoun±in to theft contrary to sections 284 of the Penal Code Cap. 16. And his manner of driving was careless in the extreme, He idioekod the vehicle twice: against a hitchen wall and against a p4ice sign post. Having taken some liquor, it was careless of him to attempt to drive a vehicle which he had no authority to drive. The vehicle was found in a damaged state. Comworks had to spend a sum of 'shs. 187/50 to put right the damage. The appellant desired ativing the said vehicle, but there, was aiiiplc evidence which the. learned trial. • magistrate was entitled to accept. The convictions arc quite sound. And having regard to the facts and the circumstances of this Case 9 the sentences apper to be rasonable. There is no cause for complainant against thn. • •• • . . • . Howevr,thco is no evidence to show that police station Ujiji sufferro a loss of shs. 840/70 because of the damage to the police sign post and t.ie,. kitchen wall, of thopo1ice statiOn. The learned t'Z'il magistrate seemed to hs lifted the amount of sh&. 8 40/70 from the particulars of the charge sheet In this heered. There isno evidence to support it'. The • order is set aside However, the order for comeisation to Comworks f Or shs, 187/5 0 is conft..niied. . ... .