Boniface Linjachi and Another vs Republic (CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 32 OF 1999) [1999] TZHC 285 (12 November 1999)

• ! I .,) ·, "-.. j • " ., I 'J IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA • AT TABORA APPELLAT3 JURISDICTION (DC) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 32 OF 1999 ... (-erigina.3:- Criminal Case Nop 2 of 1997 of District Court of Shinyanga District·at Shinyanga Before: J e Mo Semi PRM.) 1,-., · . BONIFACE LINJACHI ) 2o f TlOMINIOK P.mJL Lt-lIMO) THE REPUBLIC eo •• 0 Q 0 • • VERSUS ., . •• 00 JUDGMENT !:lfi.SA;NCHE 2 J.: APFELLA.NT ""·O·• I RESPONDENT ' The two apellants, 1?,oaj£?e ?£.hi ancl Dominick · s/o PauU&~C?. were charged in the Residen Magistrate's Court of Shinyanga for two 'different offences e1 Eeah one had his own offence 0 The first eppellant, Bonr::1.ce, who was the Ward Ex:ecutive Officer was !f:harged with c1.ttempts at e·xtortion :t by threats c/s 290 (1) of the Penal Code .. The sec'Jnd appellant Dominic was charged with compoundinc a felony c/s 111 and 35 of the, Penal Code. E8.Ch one of therμ was convicted on his respective offenceo E2ch one of them then::c::ot sentenced to fine of Shso50,000/,.. or 6 months jail in default" The two appellants j e. s I ho.Ve pointed out, held some leadership -position in the villaes. . ·.1 . , I, On 30/11/1996, a boy called !§li~ P.W.l, had been :1 grazing cattle of his fc1ther, -~~enge, 1 ; P.W .. 2ci There, ,, I at the grazing area, a fight arruptecl. between. Feya anc1 two other boys, s.eni~Yemba, Po W" 6 cmd Budole,: (not called to a

• ) 2 testify). The result of the fight was that Feya sot seriously injured on the heado It is said thnt he got so seriously injured that he had t'.) be =h!(JJ2§:cl. But, bei'ore he went to the hospital, Boniface Linjachi 9 the first appellant, gave him a letter of introduction to the hospitalo Now, it is said that Boniface lmew of the fight between Feya e.nd these other boyso The 1st o.ppellant f then went to the home of Seni, the boy who hc\d. injured FeyH, a..'1d the!E"e took some 54: heed of cattle in :preseno2 of Seni Yemba P. w. ·6? himself saying thc1-t the cattle were beins sent to Feya I s fayher to be o'Jmpensotion for the injuries inflicted of 9Jl_ Feya by Seni. Indeed T,rhen the wife/GarnU!,';]l~ P.,W.c;, one Hogga fJ./o N~s, PoW.'7 co.me home, she vms told by her son, the said Seni 5 that cc..ttle had been taken away by the 1st appellant. Indeed it was discovered that, actually, Seni had actually been swDrnoned by the Wa.rd Ex:eo<1tive, the first appellant, who, sitting, with the second appellant, told him to send them to the kraal when the oattle of his father were kcpto It is said that the ce.ttle were be inc; kept at e .. place called either of Mwailgeza or at a place called Mwangezao There, the cattle ·were taken away o Again 9 there is evidence that Seni did send these two to cull.e.ct the oattle after he (Seni) had been locked up for sometime. The cattle have disappee.tred till to dateo It was suggested that the two appellants had sold the cattle away in Arusha. Indeed, when one reo.ds the recorc .. , Dominiok, (2nd appellant) in his testimony talks of having cone to Arusho..o This evidence was believed by the trial Magistrate Mr 0 Somi PoReM• He therefore corivictec1 them. Mro Kaunda learned ad.vo·oate who appeared for the app2llant argued substatially that the evidence is lart2:ely hearsay.

" • 3 I do not know why Mro Kaunda says soo The cattle were collected by the two in presence of Senio Mr. Mwampoma, the learnec1 Senior State Attorney has submitted that he supports the convictionse If anything the evidence was just too overwhelL1ing, Mr., Mvmmpom:1 suggests. I agree that there was ample evidence on which to ccmvict both appellants on their respective charges. And, as Mr., Mwa1:ipomo. suggested, it was really too bad for the qppellonts who were lee,ders in their respective villar;est to have done what they dido Mr. Mwa'Ilpoma was not, however, hctppy. · with the sentcnc(:: of Shs .50,000/= that was imposed on ee.ch one of t hemo I also share that sentiment. The appellants took e..dvantage of their leadership positions to swindle avmy the cattle af. these peasantse 56 hend. of cattle wns quite a huge numbero We a.re informed that the estimated va1ue of the cattle substo.ntial,, I 9 however~ do not intend to vary the sentence" The appeal is dismissed in its entirety" AT TABORA.; 12th November, 1999 • · For Appellant: Mr. Mtaki/Mre Kaumlao Respondent: Absent o '