Mibango Makonyo Masubo vs The United Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 89 of 1997) [1999] TZHC 49 (5 November 1999)

\ t 06' IN THE HIGH C CURT OF TANZANIA __b.m'2- li.Av~,y AT MWANZA. ' ~ APPELLATE JURISDICTICN (Mwanza Registry) HIGH COURT CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 89 OF 1997 ORIGINAL CRIMINAL CASE NO. 538 CF 199? CF THE DISTRICT COURT OF TARii11E DISTRICT AT TARIME BEFCRE:• z.M. ICES.ASE , Esq.,, DISTRICT MAGISTRATE MIBANGO MAKONYO }LUBO II O O e. 0 0 O • 0 & O e. IO O IO APPELLANT Versus THE UNITED REPUBLIC JlJlX1MENT (Origin.μ AccusedJ RESPONDENT (Orig:i.nal Prosecutor) The appellant was charged in the District CQ.urt, Tarime with the offence of stealing c/ 265 0f 'the penal Code• The particulars . ' pf the Qffence allaged that the appellant stole cash Shs• .5)0 1 000/= the property of one Matinde w/c )\Iwi ta Chach~ .Re w~ duly convicted and sentenced to five (5) years imprisonment subject t!l:ci,nfirmation by this Court and was ordered to. refund the st0leri rwmey to the complainant. The petition 0f appeal contains seven grounds essentially chal!enging the prosecution 11Ji tnesses 41 At the hearing of the appeal, the appellant elected not w be present and J:fir. 0uta learned· Ste Att"'>rne;r represented the respondent Republic. The learned state Attc-rre;y- was quiek to point out that the evidence against the appellant was basicaJ.J.y cireumstatial, He referred t0 the evidence 0f PVJ2, a housgirl einployed PY PW1, who , allegedly saw the appellant tak.e scmething frl'"'m a dr.~wer in the shop and hurriedly depart from the premises wi th0ut '."-~iaiting PW1; Before I

... ----:,'.!' :·r· }:./.,:.;}-···,.... v·· l>roceed on t0 consider and evaluate:· the evidence before the Crmrt~ Q -~ .t·.r c~:. rv-ri .::: .: I .-I· . •., I bear i~ mind ~t inviably in a criminal case the,•burden of 'proof .--·-::j:· ~-c<· .. ,;;?:,>:Y.~ -->·(:.:.: d-;:: .. :.:. "· .... ,. . · .. - . "! • • .• · rests 0n the prosecutirin t;'1· establish its case bey0nd rea?0nable,.,.d<"'t1:,bt; . •:.h·;· 7.r- :J. ·•,,·::•'"::·,,·.-, ,· · 7·•'(·• f i: " . ... •- ,.. ,,• .. . ·, .:J-, , i 5.ec<"'nly t11at' th~~~-·i~'\i~ bu.tdn res.ting 011 the ap11li?11°!?·: fa\P,t.7iye. ¥,s .::t .,. :..(h?- . h.r.::.i._ .. ::=-t{ , . ::-;(.:- \ ·:!;.-- ._ .... _ -·;- : _ _ innocence., Adrrii ttea.Iy • this•· case depends eritirely 0n.: ctrc:1J-i}.\S:t:antfEM-.-,; . ---:!.: ·(d .!:;; .. -:f::r.cf_}·L:_ :;:_'.-'.'-:··( ::.i: :J·'-~~,-- .. -j----= ... evidence and in this regard· it''Ts 'iinpnrtant··for'°;the CO\lrt,,"'''<.• .,, . ..... ---··' .• .-,, J.·. J; Yic; " ~ ,:;;, . c:.f qf JfJ-y.,f-cRJ±S,jp.,.a.x1<;1 iab~~ 0f , · " ' __ explana tinn up~n ~ny ~-ther e~~~~Eie .:;-r;n ,:.,;-c-: .. :, /i).i:<,·1 r,.·., .- ; __ ;,-\i'"~~-1 ).! .( · 1

• ;. ·::".t, • r i. •• . ..J. - ,..._·,...- .. ;. -~ 3.-: .[ J:..'E-J.(,:-1,i,·:-·;· ·:: · "'. . · -. • - hypothesis ''bth:e:r 'tha.,,'1 that,, that ·of gu:iJ.tlii ,;J.,G, 'L;i':r:,n c'.,;. ;,,:r i'i r,r(l :": ':/), j') ,: '·ZJfoe:iittncta ;V ~r;,ngo {:ro/::>g( FJ; .. il 7,80,.. . : ,.,, .1:,,s; ,,,·;-,.f:C<. pEjl .• ]82trj-KLske & A-th~·· L: ,:,y;·,,;:J . .'' : .. , . .. . . [f94ffj '16' E1i.c1~· 13"5 at, pe >,6f 0 :;, • :;r{.:t . : ... :: r.t .: : ·;j :: . -~ ::, ..:. ,,>-' .. L '-" .. ; ,:.-. . · · . : :.: - · ., .. , · ·.:···;_ ·, .. , .:'it,·.:,·· -,·,.:, :i-r ,.,: -c· .... : _. · '.· :0: ,f.-,·'d μil:th_g-- 0{,L~~l Weaver and Donavan' ( 1926} 2'.i;'CfiIDinel ;_ . : ; . ":/ : - . •• ·- - ., - c:..., . • : ,•• :,; ·.: •. '4 , : ... : ,.,i-:".r;, JW-L~ ?9 the u-,rd C:hief Justice 0bserved '"'.'"' . : ·.:· . ; :.: . ·. ,. . .. . ... ·: , -· ·.:: ... ·.; -;::::~ - :: - : ·. ;.,·, - . . •'. . . . ~ ... : "It has been said that the evidencE' against the applicants is circuri1Stantiale So it is, but circumstantial evidence is very--0t:ten the b_est. __ It is evi.<lence , ";). I".!~ ,.. ,, • ~ '1, ... , of s9.rl:'OUilding circumstances which; b;y :r-- - undes±gned· 1 c0i:r1cidence-, · is capable :of i:< ; : pr0ving,a pr0p9.i ti0n wi tr.i. t11e acura.cy,;.: " of matheinatlcs. It 'i_s nn der')gat'ir-n: y-':!·, evidence· -t0 say that it is circumst;ajitLi!,/i The first que-sti'nn t0 -resolve '·:i's 'dii1>W4,{S\faet have shs. 5000oo/s . __ . - :.-.->-,.-.:_ :. i: .--':_..,. - :-· - ··:.·, "':-.-. :,.,.:: .,-~ .. v:·..,,,. .. ::> .. in her shop on tp.e 18.6.97? I think that the 'a;is\Mr t0 thiq questinn J... • ,. • ~ ;'.: :.)· --;;.::::: !.i/··· ~ ., must be in the affirmative., T'ne-re. t.s Jh, f;l_jid~~-·q-! PW4 who had paid -PW1 shs. ;60, 000/ = af-e-Ji O pu:tcllasing · g,")0ds fr-·,'.m -theitasfrb:f){ · During the :· ·.-.. -, .. -·: ....... ·- . . .:: ~ · .:;..--; ..-::\· .. :-{---1--/.{.t_.:.:. prr.,s.s-examinati"n c,:f P'vi4 by the app,:allant PV!.)t_tt:ld - -· ... .· !; \.A . .: !.) f.:· .. ':~ ·:1..._~. liYou found me paying PW1 her mntiey at her hop 0 i1_ ~ , Th.ett-,there is the evid~~ce of PW6 who ·is the· husb6 of PW1o He went t0 the shop :and handed ?Ver t0 PW1 sh6 •.. 2.OO 1 ocp/::a :end during the cross- examinati0n of PW6''by the appellant, it ear'g.:e:d, that: tb.e. e,ppe.llant ~~ _in

3 ... the shop when.PW6.gaV'e PW1 shs 0 200 1 000/=• This is of c0u.rse not to suggest . ., .. - . that the appellant was · a wi t:q.ess to these two transactions but the evidence points to the fact that at that ·time Pvh had at lest shs. %0,000/= in her shop. it is also not in doubt that the appellant was present a:-t the shop. There is the add.i tio.nal evidence of PW1; PW2; PW3 and PW5._ In fact .· : .. . . . .:." the question of the appellant 1 s presence at the shop is not disputed by the appellant. By his own account, 1:te had gone there to sell his goods name;i. thirty (30) _cartons of lamidry soap d tenty (20) cartns of \J-lat flouz.-. . . . ~ . ,• . . for wh_ich he was not paid but was asked to return later in the day. There i • i ' . . . is another question to be res0lvedi was the appellant left alone in the shop? ..... ,\ PW6 stated ·in his evidence that. the.requested PW1 to c9llect keys from one ._Marengo and sine was __ late in returning, PW6_ decided to follow her. This ,, ... -means that at some point bt'.1th PW6 and the appellant were fogether in the shnp bearing in _mi:nd ,that PW6 W,el;l:j l1e _h:1-1-sapd of PW1o The evidence nf PW1 is also instructive in· thisregardo 'She has this to say a.nd·I.quote ViOn 18.6.7- at about 1Pe00 a..m'r w in l'l\Y shop -and while there llJY customer ·. from Musnl'!la one Mwi ta: s/0 Giboge whn brought my money wb_ch he had te.:i.en .. ,. ~ ., . · .. goods from my shop the money was cash ;f:;o,ooo/ e accused came who br0ught twd-cart0ns 0f wheat flour and f0und me , __ epunting the money. -The accused 1e;ft in a srt time and came bck and rrry husband came and gave me cash sli...s 200 1 000/= which made Q total of shs. ------;60,000/: I fo0k shso 60,000/= and put in a table drawer and packed a bundle of shs. 500ti 000/ =··together and . put ·i.n,. a rawer when,_ I tried to pay the . . ,....... :'. .• . ,_ accused his ll10ney my husband direted. me to give the customer his gnods wh0 was in a hurry• The accused was standing in

... • t'

• 4 - the shop near the drawer'which had thnse m_-,ney, and: , I a:;ked him to wait a bit and left to the 0ther side t0 give another custnmer the g00ds 'whl,,ch he had bought, The drawr-was, left,, ·. ' : . ·. : :unlocke,d whrn ,I retUJ:?l:leci. back I ,fc 1 unc:l ,,,the, ,,,, : ,, , . accused absen:t; .?Jld wheri, I' checke'd''the drawer the m0ney cash shs 500 1 000/= was missing••••" • .:.·.,:J' ... . :'I have 'qti<':iteo: PW1's evidep.ce a,t,;.sr:ime,le;ngthto,,shqw,that th',:ii'pPe.,-llant ....... ; .... -··· :· . ..: ... . . . . ··'"""'-· .. ,'.,/ --., 'w~ (t al;~~ in, fh'e h6)?; It is als0 important to note' that PW1 dnes not say that PW6 followed her, The evidence 0f PW3 dr'.les 110t take us far. She was at the shop arranging g0ods which were t0 be taken to Muscia.; :,when PW1 left, there is no evidence that she clo~~~q the shop, sf\hfnmess . -.... • • - I'· •.•• ·-'. --::-:} · ~ as well Jlf!.d,,,a:e-cess· 't0 ,ft'~ .·,is{mi:!-ai;ly the h0use-girl PW2. The circumt.sances t1 ·. { :·:. . : ,::· ;~-/ .. ~,'.>' ......... ,. .. :.·. ---·- ·...... . . . ~ being relied on by th~. f¥lptilic cann0t f0und a c0nvicti0n. The evidence . ' . .,, "· . of PW2 the she saw the appellant take S('mething fr0m the drawer is nr:it conclusive. What was that s0mething? M0re imp0rtantly h0wever, the shc.ip waa r: a•cessible 'tel Pw2 and PW3 wh0 ,-.,er'-'i, 1 e~;;J]~ ,J?.W1 left 'to' attend anothe;r ·.<,·-.•· customer. At ·soinejpoint :even PW6, was in t;lJ.e ,--sh0p bef0re he fo+l,pw.:d PW1. Di ~~¢,:;;! , , .. my "ons:ilew 1 it ct be. saiC: w:i.:th certainty that these ciecurnstances. · point t0 the -~~eilant aJ3. the, o"Jl.prit~ The appellant did give a plausible explanation as to why he had le.i.t, .. the premises. He had gnne to repair •;,-,•· #I • . , ..... . his bicycle 1-0rrnbnrated by DW2 and then returned t0 cnllect his money vben he was arrested by Sungusungu. Under ,e circumstances, ram ,· . \ . n0t satisfi~~- that the pr0secutir-.n hav~~ts which w0uld justify the ~~ence that the appellant was the thief& .,....r therefc,re allow the appea1,'~a:e,h the Cl"nvicti0n and set aside4':enience and 0rder imposed ,.,, ' . on the appell'!ts t0 be released forthwith unless otherwise lawfuJJ.y detained in custody. It is acc"rdingly nrdered• .:.,,l,:;·, / \ (SGD). H. R. NSEKELA Juro

... 5 Date: 15,11,99 Corain: B 0 M.K, Mtl:ila ... DR .,, . For Republic: Mr. Rwa.buhallgii .,;. s/At-torne-y "' .: ... , , ' Appellant: Mi.bango Makoeyo·: Masub0 · .... Abtrent"'-;..:; ··he does· not 'Wish be present B/C:- Milka M. -><L'? .... •:;• . . : ,,-· .. ,.. Ord,er: Judgement dei'iverd in chambers ts 15th. dy··of November, 1999 in the presence of learned .state .Attbrn'ey. Mc-. Rwabuhanga but in the al>se:i;ice of :the appellar..t who q:ited to P-~ ·;absn:t:. ... . . (sgd) B. M .• - ·MMILA ·:: DJ.STR:.JT:_-RIDLSTRAR · '.5/11/99 I imreby. certify' that this is a true copy o: .· the·''brlg-iricJ. • co> ''-:'7=?-"- ·•· . • .... kIBTRICT RlriLS '

1 MWMZA . . ) . . . . . . ..: . "· . . _.J .•• ·. "