Joseph Kanisius Nyika and Another vs Republic (Misc Criminal Appeal No 1 of 1999) [2000] TZHC 442 (11 May 2000)

.f / I ' I MLSC .. CRIMIN::.1 APP .. Al NO. 1 OF 1999 (O!UGLWtL SONGEA D1·;•rRIC 1 r COl;RT CRIMINAL Cl.SE NO. 36 OF 1S99~

1. J)SEPH KANISIU.S NYIKA) ·} • - • • • • • A.PPEr..LANTS 2 • IJ:'t: 'iAINI MBELE ; VERSUG THE' REPU'.E!LIC ••••• •. • • ., ,. • • • • •• • • ~ .i1$SPONDENT J . U JJ G M E N 1': When he first appeared before the trif Court the- p:pellant was charged with one count of stealing contrary to section 265 of the Peri.al Code, The appellant stood trial on this oharga upto the close.of the . I defence when the public prosecutor applied for le&.ve to amend the charge. Re wa.s allowed to de so, whereup,n the si.'lgle eount of simple theft was a i substituted by/.charge containine forty-seven counts. of these counts fifteen are in resp0ct of stealing by agent c/a 273 (b) of the I>enal Code; .sixteen counts of obtaining gc-ods or mohey by false pretences contrr .section 302 of the Penal Code; fifteen eounts' of stealing by clerks and · aml one count of receiving stolen property, ser-vants c/s .271 of the Penal Code!£ Clearly, i the count cf stealing c/s 265 was dropped ar,cl 1:3s replaced by the four eroupe of kin and cognate crimes. The appellan.t feels aggrieved by the change of , • I circumstaces at that late·hou.r; hence this appeal. r.rhe appeal eontains five groun:l~. The fifth is in the alternative. I The first four groun-Js talk about the same matter t that the learned trial magistrate erred in allowing the amendment after tha close of the defence ' ' and. thnt the said amendment would cause an justict~ to the appellant. In the altei:native, it is alleged that the amendment t~ds nnjustified ! 1-

. < \ i ' ~

• 2 - bed&Use. the -char~ lites :»t e.fective- aither in .form oi' in su.betan-c$, In these J)!'oceedings Mr. l"1:,ryuba, lrie1rned advocate, acts £01 the appellant while Mr. Nanyan-Ja, learned State Atto1"'ney,: appeared tor the Republic. Learned counsel argued the appe@l by way o.f ittlul suh,u,seions. It appears to be f'tc.tirly common ground that the it.rial co,.:irt was r 5 e.ised of jurisdiction to amend the charge. The only controversy is whet'he_r th:e !'3.mendment was justified and if not, whethi::r an ar;-;i_Je- lies _fr~~ tha·t decisio:i., It is Mr. :laryuba' s contention that the BT1lt':.::1:int was u.t1justified for two rea,son. Firstly, that it was allowed at a very late stage. ' Secondly, that there was no proof that the char,30 ,,,s defective. Learne,:t eoU-"lS-?.l .submitG, therefore, that the amended charge; oocd an .iiiju.stice by incroducing forty-seven counts in place of cr..ly pne charge~ A ride.r to this latter issue :is -Jhether, in the circumstances, what was done w.;s indeed on amendment and riot a introduction of a totally new case. Now what doe,s the law say about the rune-fJ.-d.1.'tJ~ of c.rimin:.il charges"; Saction 234(1) providti!s thus:- ,1( 1) i:Jher·e -9t any stage of a trial, it app~~.re to the ' I court thGt the charge is Cil.efective, either /in -~ : . .substance or form, tne may makz such'alternat1on of the charf;& a.s the court think necessary to meei; the circumstances of the case unless,: having regard to the merits of the case, the rei;lired ainendma.nt cannot be made 'N'ithout injJ.l.$.tic •• • H• Now the words 11 Where at any stage of a :trial,.,a; mean at any stage before I judgment. And whether an ta.justice will ther.eb~ be oceaaijoned is a ma_tter ; that can be argued on appeal. -,n, th(m, iG an o.cc 1 .u,ed rson entitled to appeal isainst an interlocutory airPiEr such as I thi one upon whith this appeal i3/" f ounded'i Mr. \·.'aryuba and Mr. t~~-.S- ire at one that Sl'.ch an ' \ . order i appellabl under seetion 359(1) of the Criminal a-~~e Act, 1985f which provides that:•

I

. \ i 3 I I I I I I I 1 1.{1,). §e.ilre ~ hel:';i,pr;1f.t.r }n"'Ov:i,4ed., ./lX"J::f ~~•,:,on ed I I by ax1y finding., sentence or order r.::ad,: i o;,n pass-ad by t..o "'--Y-F . .. I a surbordinate count other thnn a sut>odine.t court I exercising its extended· powers., •• ma;; ch.ppe!al to the I I I High Court I According to Mr. :Jaryuba and Mr .. Manyanr.la the/ crcler allowing the ·amendmEmt I is, thel'efore-,. .appell.;d.:)le under thci above r,,1••c,-1rision.s. It ie :in that circu- 1 I mstauce ths.t the Rpublic has cl.eclfo;?d to su:ppoI't tho amendmet.tao i I In my view sction 359( 1) does not apply to interlocutory orders; it I I api-"•i.e.s t.oiAaJ..or·d.e.rs by which ari accused. per-son may be aggrieved. That I . is . : . _ . thisLso was made cl.;;~ by th..s Court -0f Al,l:tNal! i~ .. ji_~~:Li¾l-r- & anohe,r v-_o R, I Criminal Appeal No. "121 of 1991, when it said I c:,t page 5 of the typed script I I I of the judgment of the Cow·t:- 11 .,..Tha.t no appeal lies to the High Cou±-t frorn an I d

• , , . t I . interlocutory or er by a u1str1c ccur-p w a criminal case is also clear from the dhcisions I I in Leyusr s/,o, ;r,;ru v __ g., ( 1969) H.c.n: n. 314 and I I !R_Y J:/0. _ OR211~£;, REX ( 1948) T.L,R 11. i I Thi..<t position was (';mpba:izeti by the Court of ¥"!,pp2.al in Anderson Solomon v .ll, I I {J994J T.L.R. 119, at page 1;21 when they sairl;- nwa :respectii'ully agre 1 e with the .sub:rni&!sion of • I Mg ellJiuJ,b lGarned S'tate Attorney. I I i1t is I 1 settled law that an appeal does not le from I interlocutcrf a.rd.er 1n crirninal cases.I 'I'hat I this is the J.egal position on this mDtter is I . . i evident from t!1e numerouG cases dec:i..d. 7 d b~- the I I then Court o::· A_ppeal for F.astern Afl"ida and this I I Court on this pc.)int. Among other case~ the ,Gourt I of Appeal fer Eastern Africa iri d(-'1-;J,q v-J-M), t:he 1J \ . I ca-i~ of Ugerida v .. Lule {J<:lljj E.A. 62 !heL:.~ \ I I I I I I \ \ J

i ''i'h&r-~ ie no ar..e.:al frcm orJ.:ra or i th2 HiBh Court incid,!ntal t.c e. I ,::rii.dnal a.rJpt:al tiut. ).ct invc. :inrr I I i d;;cision of app,nl 11, I I ) The- rJ.?sons oehirid tb:it mtr:,te o~· the lDw 11Jere Gte;;t:;:, Co\ri-t ~ t,atuk s/ .-. ~~!1 .. ; i v.- 1 ('19/.+8) T. L. R,. i'1 1, a1 t i 1 )y this '!"l.""I' '·• 1 l'i "'C"' !i.,., i'l J • rt- · .. ..Jo.a;d ••t ,. '--' • ,) , - 1 !t is also c. n•:)V;l prorJCdition tc me ::l1at an :iceused I like ltie wy the cl.'laz'gz hE1ve I him, lo.r ·.-,ho thinks '---= '- · :. ·:,;en I pre j1ldic€:ci by a misjoindr o:r charges 11 •. -zc,n cr.tf>St i the i:out"-e o:· cri.!nfoal ptocedin,.:rs by filwr, these pr~:.iminary poi11.ts .... n c:rn osily imlgir.:.:• the' I I atusas cf the procesu of I just ice which miliht r.:c ist: . i I if euch a pr'5.c.tice were .illcwed •. A deta!'m1r.i,d lit:i.gant 1 ,r t· .. ,._ ••v·, ... e1· <..••, o.:> .. ·1ttl, - '<V ,,.;·.,. ··,·,u~. y. -.i.r•,a ,;, u-:. 7.,,::: ._.,~ ,1, "" • ! _1;, ..,.., 0 -.. •• , '. ..,., 1 ... 1.J~ 1.., .. ,L.r;., e cri:ni.'lc2l t::·ial ,:.li20.st; inde:finately or Ett .x::-.v ::,lt': I for very rr.ueh lciger tb::iil i.s 1.l4Jsirable ::i.n t'.:.,, I wblfo interest, for suefl 1,mdue protroc.U:•r, •.v.J!.ild. '-. • i I bririg th(: .ic.:Jfr .. istratiorilo! ,jti:rtice intr: bo~...,L .. ,,pt~·• I l . I , !t is, tnr"•fcre, l;.H:t?:,r.Jci r1;;siaonble controver5y ;v·: i":'i::tti<Jrs end. :Jrdel:'B cf on iteclocntcry .csture may roparly forrt suiJls. .. ,uti~\oosd legitim•« grour.d.s cf .::ip1;e;al if ,ilt the 1$ncl\ o-£ the trie.l trio ;: , ::Lte;c:d '. \ contic:d.e Sc if th e-.g•-i!llant ·.; .:} s .::i.i.d.,.pve:I i,. dte·- ieSe:1[· (,;".'l6.1Jf'f.r: 1 ;.:•~n.•: the. law I \ I . not leare hi.<. withc·Jt e ;!'cper r•me,iy at the ""I ,,pr:.i>t• and g·c;;,.,r

' ,, ..... "f• " i~ ! I I I

• 5 .. Upon the abov~ consider(1ticns I nm stis:t'izd that the appeal' i.s untE>ne.ble at law. It is eocolrdinz::.y dism.issaJ, !'i: ie directed ' I " '. I th!!lt the trial do pl"ocfJ.i in t~rms of Si ~ti9n Z,34 (2; • (5) of the Qrimw.l Pt-,ooedu.1·1i:! Act, 1!985 Mr. Manyande., S.A., For Judge 1/5/200 ~t