Leopord Millinga vs Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 57 of 1999) [2000] TZHC 484 (16 October 2000)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF Ti1.NZ11.NIA AT IRING/~ CRIMilUu, APPEAL NOe 57 OF 1999 ORIGINJu, l-'IBINGA D/COURT ECON. CRIMIN.AL C,IBE NO. 2 O:f 1996 BEFORE PoE.P. MLAY, PDM. LEOPORD MILLINGA o ••• o ....... • • • Ji.PPELL.'.NT Versus: THE REPUBLIC RESPONDENT JUDGMENT This is an appeal against sentence. He was sentenced to 15 year5 • and to 5 years imprisonment following his conviction in respect of 'being ., in un~uthorised possession of firearms and ammunition c/ss 13 (1) and 31 (2) of the ii.rms and i.rnmuni tion Ordinance as read together with paragraph 20 of the First Schedule and section 59 of the Economic and Organized Crime Control Act; No. 13 of 1984 on the first count; and manufacture of arms c/ss 22 artd 31 (2) of the .,ws and wmnunition Ordinance. He complains that the sentences are manifestly excessive. Nr. Manyanda, learned State Attorney• has declined to support those sentences .. I-Ie is right. According to section 5 (iii) (g) of the Minimum Sentences Act, as Amended by Act No. 10 of 1989 the statutory minimum sentence for the unlawful possession of arms and armunition fall into two oategories. The first group relates to arms which are or include arms of war for which the minimum sentence is fifteen years. The second category relates to civilian arms the minimum sentence of which is seven years imprison.11ent. As Jvi.r. Manyanda correctly pointed out, there was no proof·that the arms which were found in the unlawfl.il, possession of the·appellant were arms of war. It follows, then that they were civilian arms,. 2

.. ::. ~ .... I, . ' • r . , ' ' ' , .

2

The appeal is, upon the foregoL~g considerations, allowed. Consequently, I ' the sentence of fifteen years that was imposed in respect :of the first count is reduced to seven yenrs. Sentence on the second count remains undistur_bed. J.M. Mackanja, .J. 16/10/2000. I certify that this is a true copy of the original. DISTRICT REGISTRAR,