Emmanuel Saguda@ Sulukuka Another vs Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 422 of 2013) [2014] TZCA 2184 (17 March 2014)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT TABORA (CORAM: MSOFFE, 3.A.. KIMARO, J.A.. And MJASIRI. 3.A.) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 422 "B" OF 2013 APPELLANTS l.EMMANUEL SAGUDA @ SULUKUKA 2.SAHILI WAMBURA VERSUS THE REPUBLIC ....................................................... RESPONDENT (Appeal from the decision of the High Court of Tanzania at Tabora) (Sonqoro, J.) dated the 23r d day of October, 2013 in Criminal Appeal No. 104 & 105 of 2011 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 12th & 17th March 2014 MJASIRI. J.A In the District Court of Bariadi in Shinyanga Region, the appellants Emmanuel Saguda@ Sulukuka and Sahili Wambura and another were charged with four (4) counts of economic offences:-

1. Unlawful entry into the National Park contrary to section 21(1) and (2) o f the National Parks Act Cap 282 RE. 2002 (the Act)
2. Unlawful possession of weapons in the National Park contrary to section 24(1) (b) and (2) o f the Act.
3. Unlawful hunting in a National Park contrary to section 23 (1) o f the Act.
4. Unlawful possession o f Government trophies contrary to section 86(1) and (2)(c) o f the Wildlife Conservation Act (Act No. 5 o f 2009) read together with paragraph 14(d) o f the First Schedule to the Economic and Organised Crime Control Act, Cap 200 R.E. 2002. They were convicted on all the four (4) counts and they were each sentenced to 12 months imprisonment or a fine of shs. 10,000/= on the first count; two years imprisonment or a fine shs 20,000/= on the second count; three (3) years imprisonment on the third count and 30 years imprisonment or a fine of shs 13,617,000 on the fourth count.

Being aggrieved by the conviction and sentence of the District court, they appealed to the High Court against both conviction and sentence. Their appeal to the High Court was only partially successful. The sentence of 30 years imprisonment was reduced to twenty years, hence their second appeal to this Court. Each appellant presented a four (4) point memorandum of appeal. Their grounds of appeal centre on the following issues

1. PW1, PW2 and PW3 were not credible witnesses
2. It was not proved that the appellants were caught in the National Park by PW2 and PW3.
3. The court wrongly admitted the evaluation report and the inventory form, Exhibits PI and P2. It was the prosecution case that on July 3, 2011 the appellants were found at Serengeti National Park without any written authorization. They were also armed with bows and arrows, knives, bush knives and trapping wires. It was also alleged by the prosecution that they were found in

possession of government trophies namely, zebra and warthog meat, worth shs. 1,361,700/=. PW2 Nicholaus Mboma and PW3 Alfred Luoga were park rangers who were on patrol. They saw footprints leading to the banks of river Mbalageti. They followed the footprints which led to the discovery and subsequent arrest of the appellants. The conviction of the appellants was based on the testimonies of PW1 Jesca Mathias, PW2 and PW3. PW1 who was the Bariadi District game officer testified in court that her duty was to evaluate, inspect and issue permits. She examined the government trophies alleged to have been found in the possession of the appellants and she prepared a certificate of valuation of the trophies and an inventory form. Both documents were admitted in court as Exhibits PI and P2. The said Exhibits were relied upon by the trial court in establishing the fourth count. At the hearing of the appeal both appellants appeared in person and were unrepresented. The respondent Republic had the services of Ms. Jane Mandago, learned State Attorney.

When the appellants were called upon to argue their appeal, they opted to let the State Attorney address the Court first. Ms. Mandago on her part, did not support the conviction in respect of the third and fourth counts. However, she supported the conviction in respect of the first and second counts. In relation to the first and second counts, she stated that the appellants were caught red-handed at the Serengeti National Park by PW2 and PW3 who were park rangers at the National Park. They were also found with weapons such as bows and arrows and animal traps. During the trial both appellants did not cross-examine PW1 and PW2 on this fact. As regards to the third count, Ms. Mandago submitted that no evidence was established that the appellants were found hunting. She contended that the charge had no basis on this count. In relation to the fourth count, Ms. Mandago submitted that the government trophies alleged to have been found with the appellants were

not brought in court as exhibits. This means the exhibits were disposed of before being put in evidence. PW1 tendered in court only the evaluation report and the inventory form (Exhibits PI and P2). She submitted that the appellants did not have the opportunity to see the exhibits. She made reference to sections 353 of the Criminal Procedure Act, Cap 20, R.E. 2002 and Section 101 of the Wildlife Conservation Act (Act No. 5 of 2009). The appellants not having the benefit of counsel did not have much to say in rejoinder. They simply challenged their conviction on the first and second count arguing that they did not commit the said offences. We on our part after a careful analysis of the totality of the evidence on record and the memoranda of appeal filed by the appellants, and submissions by counsel, we are inclined to agree with the learned State Attorney. In relation to the first and second counts, the District Court relied on the evidence of PW2 and PW3 who found the appellants in the National Park without permission and in possession of weapons. The District Court relied on the evidence of PW2 and PW3 who found the two appellants in the National Park without permission and in possession of

weapons and Government trophies. The appellants did not cross-examine PW2 and PW3 when giving their testimonies. In Browne v Dunn [1893] 6R. 67, H.L, it was held that a decision not to cross-examine a witness at all or on a particular point is tantamount to an acceptance of the unchallenged evidence as accurate, unless the testimony of the witness is incredible or there has been a clear prior notice of the intention to impeach the relevant testimony - See also Rex v Hart [1932] 23 Cr. App. R. 202. In Hussen Bakari Kadogoo v Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 54 of 2006 CAT (unreported), a duty to cross-examine was underscored. On the third and fourth counts, we entirely agree with the submissions made by the learned State Attorney. As far as the third count is concerned, no evidence has been given to establish that the first and second appellants were hunting when they were caught in the National Park. Therefore the offence of unlawful hunting in a National Park contrary to section 23(1) of the National Parks Act has not been established.

We now come to the fourth count in respect of unlawful possession of Government trophies contrary to section 86 (1) and 2(c) of the Wildlife Conservation Act. Section 353 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides as under:- "If anything which has been tendered or put in evidence in any criminal proceedings before any court is subject to speedy and natural decay the court may, at any stage o f the proceedings or at any time after the final disposal o f such proceedings, order that it be sold or otherwise disposed o f but shall hold the proceeds o f the sale and, if unclaimed at the expiration o f a period of twelve months after the final disposal o f such proceedings or any appeal entered in respect thereof, shall pay such proceeds into the general revenues o f the Republic . " Section 101 of the Wildlife Conservation Act provides as follows:-

" Subject to section 99(2), at any stage o f the proceedings under this Act, the court may on its own motion or an application made by the prosecution in that behaif order that any animal, trophy, weapon, vehicle, vessel or other article which has been tendered or put in evidence before it and which is subject to speedy decay, destruction or depreciation be placed at the disposal o f the Director." (Emphasis provided). It is evident from the provisions of section 101 of the Wildlife Conservation Act, the Government trophies found in possession of the appellants were required to be tendered in Court as exhibits. This was not done. Instead a certificate of valuation and an inventory form were tendered and admitted in court. The appellants did not have any opportunity to see the actual trophies and did not have an opportunity to raise an objection. It is a well established practice in cases where witnesses are required to testify on a document or object which would subsequently be tendered as Exhibit that the procedure is not simply to

refer to it theoretically as was the case here, but to have it physically produced and referred to by the witness before the court either by display or describing it and then have it admitted as an exhibit. The court treated the reports produced by PW1 as conclusive. Given the position, the requirements under the law have not been met. The High Court Judge upheld the conviction of the appellants on all the four counts. He however reduced the sentences on the fourth count form thirty 30 to twenty 20 years as the trial court failed to take into account the mitigating factors raised by the appellants. In view of the fact that the charge against the appellants were not proved in respect of the third and fourth counts, the conviction of the appellants on both counts is no longer valid. However, the conviction on the first and second counts was proper and still stands. For the foregoing reasons, we hereby allow the appeal in respect of the third and fourth counts, we quash the conviction and set aside the sentences of tyventy (20) years. The appeal is allowed to such an extent. The appellants? were convicted on 5th August, 2011. In view of the fact

that the appellants have already completed serving the one and two year sentences in the first and second counts we hereby order that they be released from prison unless they are lawfully held. It is so ordered. DATED at TABORA this 14th day of March 2014. J. H. MSOFFE JUSTICE OF APPEAL N.P. KIMARO JUSTICE OF APPEAL S. MJASIRI JUSTICE OF APPEAL I certify that this is a true copy of the original. p. v O a m p ik y a SENIOR DEPUTY REGISTRAR COURT OF APPEAL