Said s/o Machogo and 2 Others vs United Republic (High Court Criminal Appeal No. 03 of 1999) [1999] TZHC 279 (29 September 1999)

..... ··- ,,.,. IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA AT MWANZA APPELLATE .JURISDICTION . (MWAN2A REGISTEY) - HIGH COURT CRIMINAL, APPAL N0.03 .OF 1999 . . . . . . '··' _: ~ '.. ' - :-,ORIGINAL CRIMINI\L.CA$ N()O:, 855 _OF 1996 OF THE DISTRICT'COURT OF MUSOMA DISTRICT AT MUSOMA . . . ' . . '; . ;BEFORE 1?.iR~ MUTUNGI, Esq, RESTJ)ENT MAGISTR.\TE -· . ,· . - . . ' . . ' ·.- .. 1 o. SAID s/o MA.CHOOD . - ---- '}' - 2. A CHARA s/ ~ JU1'1ANNE ,. 0 0 0 o e .•. .. , ) 3._ ABDALLAH s/o:-CHARIB ) Versus THE UNITED. R,EPUBLIC . j,- J U D G ME N .. T ••...• APPELIANTS c Orig·.··Acc\1sea.):•· • 0 • RESPONDENT ··._ ,,: ,., ·NCH:A.LIA t J O · This i_s a joint appeal filed by three appellants mi:.me-ly (1) .J ··r . . . .- Sa.id_-s/o :Machogo, (2) We.chara s/o Jumanne; ,(.3) Abdallah s/o ·- Cha,r-ib who are, 1st, 2nd and 3rd appellan respectively .. : The appellants were ,, . r ' ; .. . _Liointly carged at; Musoma District cot: with robbery with violence

• -- ·'· ... •. '--· ,, ·,c/ss 285 ap.dr 286 p_f .;A Penal C_ode. They wee charged .jo'int.ly • ; . J • ·,; : ·'. ::.• • • . • • • ::, -.! .:, '. .) ~ l ·: .. : --: ith rive 9Jb,er.s who were, however, acquitted on no ca.'s'·to answer. , '. I.,,• ~ : I :- . ' , . ··- i '·· • ! . · .• / · The ·rthree appellants were: convicted of the offe.rice - and wet-· each . . . . . . ' .. ' · .. ~ .. : ... '•:;,,aentrkq. Jo 15 years imprisonment without any order of compensa- .· )-., ) . . ' .. . :(.•'· tion, alth-0Hg~",·'.t was alleged in the chargeshet, that the · · aJ1pellants stq::I;e a .video dee~ wor:th_ shs., 300, ooo/= and a radio worth 90,000/=. : : The appellq.nts were dissatisfied with the dee is ion· of the tr_ial :~mbordinate _court, hence this appeal against bbth conviction and sentence.:.

2 The appellants did not wish~ t.Q, be present at the hearing of their appea~ so I heard the appeal in their absence, but paid due attention to the grounds ... Lappe.a.l.c0ntained in their joint pe- "ti'tion of appeal; They were not represented by an advocate. On the other 'side M;. Magoma, learned Principal State Attorney appeared for the Republic/Respondent, and argued the appeal upto some stage where this court'i'equired some authority from decided cases by courts of record on the legal effe-ct. that arises from the noncompliance .of sect:Lon 225(4)(5) ·of the Criminal Procedure Act, 85 by a trial court. Bo, the hearing of the .appeal went through a couple of adjournments before Mr Magoma produced the required decisions;· ·At last if became Mr. Kabonde'f!l lot to argue that legal technical point• ahd to cite the required authoritie!3, to assist this court to decide the appea. I will therefore begin. with ·t,b:- ~ Magoma' s submission. He sub- 1' (.-· ·-·· '· mitted on grounds 1 ,2 and 4 of appeal togethero ·Thos~-gr;Gnas .. r ·. ·, are ( 1) That the appellants were not properly identified at the scene by the complainants who testified as PW.1, P.Wo2 and P.W.30 fu fac't they are the only witnesses who testified on the ·proecutio".l.; r·, .. :. -·'. (2) That the learned trial Rsident Magistrate (Mrs. B.R. Mutungi, Esq RM) disregarded the defence case which is supported by D .w. 1, DoW.2 and Exh 11 D" which is'the caution statement of P.\•j;t; ·· · ( 4) That the conviction of the appellants which was solely based ·t'.::-h ... on the testimony of P.w.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3, was wrong, as that evidence did not establish the appellants 1 ·. guilt beyond :reasonable _., ~'-· .... ;. doubt. ' Mr. Magoma, submitted that the 1st and 2nd appellants were close neighbours of P.W.1 at Nyasho area in Musorila township. P 0 W O 1 ·testified that or1 25/10/96 abou:t midnight when she and P .W .2 aria P.Wa3 were asleep in their house, they suddenly heard the front door of their house being broken open by a big stone that was •.. /3.

3 thrown against it, hence it broke open~ P oW o 4 is the mother and owner of the house, while P.Wo2 is her daughter, and P,W,3 ~ grandson. P.Wo1 and PoW.2 slept in the same room, while PoW.3 slept in yet another room in the same house. P oW o1 had been doing the business of conducting video shows at he; huii·; and on '25/10/96-·she did so, and many pople had · •. . "! ·- ::·.· .. i- :·• : a.ttendedo Howevr, P.W.1 did riot say that she had seen any of the appellants at' this vide6 show· ···,-;, P.W."l stated that· there was electricity; -and the ,ele_ctric lamps were on when the invaders.stormed in 0 P.W 0 1 said se woke lip and right away the thugs had already ·.entered her house. The thugs ordered these victims• to lie-down and keep_quiet. Then the j. •• ~ " thugs started stealing the items mentioned in the .9harged~ which included 'a video deck, which the thugs failed to ,:;ro:ry away, but. left it back wh~'n !·tl'iey:'t'lin away hen P.W.'1 and P.Wo2 rais_ed an alarm. Army m£/n carne to :the scene in arnwer to the alarm. Also other people came there,but none of these were called to te$,tify at the trial. · This is in my vie.w- a very cur,:i,.ous omission., parti- . . ,:·; :·.'.•' -::c ula:;ly 1en considered along with the striking exclusion _of the evidence o't"the Investigating officer. who was, _also n_ot called to . : \ testify in this case.· Very:curious! .,:,t,e :i.:t not? Also it is very curious that no independent' witness ·among the people v1ho went to the l::!Cne soon after 'thi/3 '{·obbr.y i~ aJ.leged to' ha-ire :been comll}ttedt _.'v:. ': ·::•,,;.. .. as e-vQr t'.ld by PoW.1, P.W.2 and P.w.3 tha_t it was these appellants or any one o:~ them, that they hnd seen and identified at the scene ;~ during the ccmhiission of,,the alleged robbery. And.in fact from -' "' ! th;~~;oc~:erl1gs''of the trial court on 19/{1,9~8 the Puhli? Prose- . 1·: .:. :. . . . cutor cona:dved with P.W.1 .and removed the c-?,ution statement of .. . . ,.•, P·.w.1 from.the ·police record, which statement.was contrary to P.W/1 1 s testimony in court. Mr. Makowe, :)..earne Advocate who was represe- nting these three appellants at the trial, had a.:pplied to be given

4 that statement to use it in cross-examinat:j.on~ The Public Prose- cutor lied during the p:r';oced:i,.;ngs, that· the said statement gqt 1.'· ,;. • lost, when Mro Makowe d 2nd 1?-Ppellartt, had seen .th:at statement in the police record n· 'th.at very ino;rii:1 6 ,b,efore the' trial resurried4 .• ~~.. ' The presiding Resident 'Magistrate ws r:eal;I..y ,cross.• 'with this conduct of the Public Prosecutor, as· is ·evident from her ruling on that day, iri..whih she :wrote 1 iThe.cdu:r;:t. ordrs that. this issue i. : ·., ,: . ..! ' <·,:'- ,, . ., " {:,:, ' ' ' should be notified to 'the'.<RCO and also;the statemen't · be .. brought ..... ·:,"'._;--,.-... _____ , __ <;.:., ····' '!."j· -.• ··. . forthwith as ordered° by' "tpworrow morri-in,g:. 11 It wef.s =af,ter thi :· ., . ·.'[("~ t,---.r.,·r- :. . ·. f· .-, . stern warning, by the/ tr:i~ Resid.elf M!'lgistrate' that. on 20/8)9f]i:. . . ., i . the Public .P,;rosecutor :proμuced P .w /1 1 s statement which she had . :·,·· •,··: made to the ,police, v1hich 11as admitted and marked E:Xh 11 D" 0 That '..J, ,).::•,·._. statetiierit- ,was recorded .f:r,om P .\v'1 iiiefore the qp,rge, wa.s filed 'in •, . ,-,. .' . 'i - -,-.,· . ..·.. -::-~~ { .'" .-!•;,:.-: .• : '.-.:. \·::, : !_ r • .• cour't: ,. ··rn.,that statement PoW 0 1 statq_, intera1ia, t1:tus: if na ·-. ·, . ··- . . ---..;-:,..:;'/:' . ·. . . . s ikuwza: k_11wafahcirrtu. ila sura za6 'nimz ikariri sana -- 11 o But in :·-: .. ,;_ court .p ohl a 1 stated·.;that she identified these three .appellants. ,. ·•.•· An&· irt ·fat; .the evidence is establisll:g. that this.e, ppellartts ; ···•/ . .:_(· '· .. ~J..-' all P.;W .'J. 1 s close neighl;,ours.; ' : \ '· '·, ' ' r How qme that she never meritA.oneq. ·.r·- ::)_['(-.,:. the appeJ+ants ·by ·name., .. in her caut.ion 13tatement? _9\itright · I find ih :,· i:9' cohsider;l view; that P.W .1 is eyidence is a mere pack of ],ies . ~ ~ , .. -. . f6r ·reason best ·known. to hero "But that reason was given by 1st .. a~~~llant, ·a:nd' tvassupported 'byr o:t,her def'ence.-.wtnesses't that ?.W o1 .~ .. . had a grudge with 1st and 3rd appellants arisi;J,g from the breakdm·m of the love affair between P .tv .2, who is· PoW o1.',.~ granddaughte,r, and 1st appejlant, which love it appears, was hoped to culminate into a marriage, whereby PoWo1 would have been paid many cows ': as dowry, as it is customary among people in Musoma in Mara region-., l hl:3.v.e deeply believed this evidence. Mr• ago, l~arried Principal state Attorney also ·111bmi tted on the legal implication o:t'· the'nonobservance of section 225(4) CPA,. 85,, by a trial court. To him he was of the view that when a t,

5 . /<: .. ).' court ·does not observe th'.at section· whfo'n·-,Js · cfouched. up• in mandatory terms, th.en the- entire proceedings are the'reJiy 0 rendered null and void. As already stated, ·r •rquifed-authori ty· fom••:a:ecided _?ses· PY superior courts, to back up Mr Magotila t S·· submiss'10n· oh' 'tfif.s::,~~al· point• . When Mr• Kabonde t learned.- Senior State A ttorny took over the. conduct of this appeaT fr·om V1r. Mligoma on•'the" srr.de of the Republic, he came up first with t-he de'Cision of.:.this: court .. byc:°-mv learned ,..., ;· ·. . '. '•-..: .-- Y, .. ·.,. . brother Judge Koros,o (~~,-- he fh:ri wasrin R.t·., M__g~!W. Ma.n±&a (1992) . ; J···; ; ~ -~ - ... ,-. -. ) . -~ . . TLR Po48 at TaboPa·:Registry, and the dec.:i,si9~··?fAhe.;c;:t; ,?f:tPpeal of Tanzania JE.JlP \rJ{i__])ia~Edwa£d Kibab·a CR."'Appal No,:1,oE/1993. • I • ..--,: ;.s:,;.;:::.· DSM (unreported) at P.8 of the typed judgment. . • • •f _; .':, •:r;> • :.: In the ca-se Qf Mgema M~yμ;1a (supra), t,he learned Judge held, . .. . .. - .... _ - intera:Lia;· ·that )itL.;±he:· applfoation:df:'-th~ .prov,;isi'-ons ·.of . .se_c,tion .. ,. • -• .. w••• ~ ~ ._ -~ •• • - ••.::_-, - • :. -: ~~~~-, .... ;, ' • : • 225(4)(a).::cif the-"CPA f 'tlie court has-to ··teiuse"lf'o··adjourn-acase ~ . - ·.c·.-,:_)1:17·.~-r . .-· ..... 1. •.• -· even wher·Ei'ti. certificate has been filed by the Regional Cr.imes

• .": ..-.r•); ••' :.:/~ I . • • • :-:• • •, •

Officer if' satisfied t.hat the ·C?rtificate has .. not been al;>le .to show . . . . ·.' ---':-..,__ .. -:··---,-·-_ ..... ,.·, -~~-->::- - .,·,--:.__---: ..... ~ . . :· ·."--· :.:: .. ·--·.':.::: ·-· ·. _: .. ·<-- an existence of a .real ne·ed· for:-an-· adjournm=et .,;..o:r,.,the gro_μnds are·. unreasonabi1f. 11 It wni:"be noted'. that •in the>case before my learned brother Judge;krosse>:.}he ·djc:>urnment was ;,:[~~red der section 22,5(4)(a) GPA, 85, which is coucb,e_d in'discreti.nro-y ter.,-. thus 11 the court may 11 ,· qi.ii'te different fr6tn the. mandatqry terms : , . · ,. -:, 11 the court shaJ.i 1 f~·: whr'6h -is used in paragraphs. (1 ) 'and (c) of . '. ,, .:· . sect ion 225 ( 4) CPA,, • 85, . , , In· . :tl].a:t case . the trial court.•. ha.d , d;isrrμ.,ssed · " . . . ·- .. . ., ' ':,., . . .. , . -, the charge within only:;;55 ,days 'after the :case was instituted. The Judge fund that such dil3issal can ;ly .b- 1Tll3;'de' after the· eXpirty _'..';:::-f'. ,'£:.:·.- '-'...:_:'. .. ' . ~ ··• .. of sixty days.~ Sq., /t ).s,;,11w:,fiI1:d;i.g'. that \1?,e: facts 8:11d · circumstances of .,::, .:r-;, __ •:.(.::"=~ .. ~ ..... - .~-.--:·:::: .. :,- .. ·: .;::· i::·--.~-,. ·. 1.. .• ,.#:., ·_ ... L.:· ... - r ..... :.:--. ... Mgema Manyuya' s case are di:ffere'rit;· fr6m' tne. facts 'and, citcurilErearices of the instant caseo In t:qe,·.p.resent case the charge was fi:!,ed ,. in court on 29/10/96,. and the case was mentioned on the ~ame date. The trial of the case started not until on 3/2/97, which is over 120 days after the case was mentioned for the 'first time. ,; •... /6.

... 6 So, this w~ a situq.tion,co.mi.ng~.squarly·under -section-225(4)(b) And.· 'in the_ eds·;; WilJj'.:mz~~~~d-._Kibma (®a), the Court· . :. .. - i-' .;; ·; .• : .. - .. - "',"'. . . , .· :·· : .. -- . . ' '• ..•. :<. •,·. . . . of -Ap:peal considered _p.nd ini;erp-retd,,the sentire sectiotr 225 CPA, 85, .' . ,,' ··.. :. . ,.... -·· includng its•:511bect'ions_ nnd pa.rngr6.ph:,? •. :The Court ·of Appeal· held . . . ' .- •• : . , . .., ;_'i ·t . in re1atp,I1. t.o· sttbseci~~ .\ o sec:Jiqn~~~f:,·:l?, .5.}h_u: • • ·-· -✓ . ,j. • ~ •• ')Vnd.T. the amene_q.,.la,w,.'. J.i.,k .. unde:n~.the:··old ·law ·.(i.e.Act 9/85.& .. C.a~.?.CU, the. trial lll9.gitnte -- , ·' !::::tria:11itr;:,:t~~[t1:: 0 ::n:iscr · tion is ,prov:lt1eJ'..-:ro;t:'hr,fi15':.:Sft1;1+{)of .1cicti;n ..::2.·-ol';"the··Acf~::,·:}Yer,,. uri-er::th'epreent~:liiw- the <,: · .;- -grente-r·,~t: :-or· conlfro""Itirig-o.dJo·"ttr'nments, . -th~~- t- hnd:, be·fi.Jre ·te·, -~~!lle°1:1dmeri°'t;' . Thμs:S.ubsction 4· . lay dwn a tie. 0 tnb:L~ --;;: sherne·:or·.~~·ani'irig.ridjorimens ·'di th, .refern9e }o fhe. be.Jori:ty of the- ,qfferices, under the .,.,1-.Pen;i,·cqd,e.~ li!!,g.r_thi scheine __ the_cour:t 'is,-,eillJ?OWered. to . ------------------------------------------- . !:fus.e ajj0urnrrient = ub:'let3s certain reguirement's · w,e=met, · : · ailgc""'irL:,tnz;nLadjo:urnt.iL.cn..onlbe_ -M;, :--graritd for specified periods. ·(emphasis mire), ---""."""'--------"""~.:---------:----:-.. ···-;-:..·-·- ,. ;·~ ·- -. •' ._ ' Although Mr. Kabonde cite.d yet Mother dec'.ision of the Court • :-.-·: ,:,·.~ · : • -:-.~ :·· ·--. -- •• ·;·_· ; ; • • • • : L .;' • • • • • L ·( i: · .. of Appeal by way of analo~, yet for purpose of my decision on. the ·'l~gril point relating' to the effect of nonobservance :r··: .. _:qf sectiQri 225{4) C:!;A., 85,, the decision of the-Court o.f ·. PP.~~~. ?,:JflljE,·I!I ,;:,.r&U:d Kibamba. _( ?'pra) i q_ue. suffi--: _ cient, the same i:,pecficall:y covers t_he rel ·ppint under. __ , · :. :, • ·• :. (.!·:·., · L~ --:----.fc_·· ·• , · _:,.-. - - ••• •• -· -·••...__. ·: ·•· . · ,.. . • ' . ,, cohsiderntlon. However, :it is apposite for me to cite· ,. ,; tfait''seobnd. d~.ci$-ion o":f':''fhe, Gq.urt- of- Appalqich Mr. '' , .... Knbonde, lemmed,B,tate. Attorney Qited in thi~ 1:l,pperu.,, as -'.· . ; ,• ; ··• . ···:·:·· .. ···, -·.·---. . >'. :"), .... ,- ~ .. .- indeed, the same can come handy some day to those fon'd'erned, wher{"i{ sinii.16.r s'itun.tion arises, •ri.nd :they are calleq;upon to mak_e, a su:qrnission. --Th;:i,t case is cited as 1!,t4,_mo.n Ro.shid _v • Q/A criml.,nal A,P],_eal _No 1, 138L1994-1- at . Man~ ( unreporte,1).. ThD.t decision ws in relntion to '.' ... n:olitbrnpi:iince of section 5?(3)(a)(i)(ii)(iii)(b) CP.4-r ,85 •. , The Gour;t-;held, :iil-tralfa., i!'1 1 he provisions 10-f subsection (3) like the other provisions of section 57 . . ·,- .- ,·. - ·,· ·,, ... ,• . of the Act are designed to ·sn.feguard ·the rights and interest's' 'of the per<sons suspected by· the police' of· . •••. /7. ..

7 committing crimipl offences. In particular they seek to ensure that sta.tements llegedly made to the police by such suspects ure voluntary nnd free from error, and·; the.court will a.lwnys. strive to ensure thnt this object is ach.ieved. But such :· ·; !'. f . . .- . . .. . ~ ...... - - . -·. . J.," spirit and endeavour cannot justify construfng the word_ shhll''in subsectfoif (3)' a&·'impos-ing a strict or mandatory requirement ;as. ,conte_nd};l. by .Mr~ Mtaki_. ,-•,s:- • It is not in every __ c::ase tat the abse_nce of a •--'1-' '.. ,. • .: ·- ;certificate in terms of this sub-section will render the cautioned statement inadmissible o '- For instnnce, where the - vo_lunturiness_ or correctness of n cautioned statement is not disputed or chril:leitged, there can hardly be any justification . for its exciusion by the court • 11 Now 3:everting to the decision of the Court-;f Appe.:11 in < ~ •. :: - ... ,J .. ~~ ;,'f - -·. Williafu 'Edward Kibamba (supra) o.nd the holding of the Court of Appeal in respect of sectin 225( 4)CPA; 85, Tom n6w of the confirmed -·!-i.J >-> _,,. .. view tha.t adjournments of a case cannot b~ made liwfully without. . l ,--, ,;·· . " :·~· • ·, : . recourse nnd compliance to the timetable or scheme provided under tho.t section. The Court of Appeal specifically stated that

• .. -.-.,,.. . _ ...... -·'. 11 £!ld j~?,.n,x. event adjournments c.an 'pnly be granted for specified •'. - •• ' •• 1 ::·.,~ ,·-,. ;eer-io~. 11 This in rrrj view means, a court cannot adj'cnu-'n ti ase at wilt ,ithu 'tt~ s;-ifiedperiods set in sub-sect:i,on' '4 of :; :·· section 225 CPA 85·. . ' t. ,-·,: -··- :·";-,,·: L,·· .·-- _ __ .. set under this section, is unlawful, an'd, fn my view, wn1··v.itiate the entire proceedingso . . "!!'-•:, . . . In the inshi.nt case the ·trial Resident I :.:- : l( ·•: .. ,•: .· Magistrate adjourned the cae on svera:f ccasions 'from 29/1-0/96 til on 3/2/97, over 120 days, when the trial commenced. There is no indication on the record that the trial magistrate adverted 'I her mind on the requirement.of section 225(4) CPA 85. She was quite· oblivious of that legal requirement,, ns if the same had not been enacted at all. It is the last thing this court of record will encourage subor-dinnte courts to conduct.proceedings in quite ~•a ,/8,

8 disregard of the law •. T!le tiaf (?O,'l: .recnird furtl:ler shbs· that after Po W o 1 had ..... . . ·,·. ..... . ..... -· ~ - , ,:1 '-: C- .. : ... -, .. '- · fest:i..fied 'on the prosecution side on 3/2/97, the case was adjourned . :)',:, -·: •' ' -· .,- . . . : . . . rn several 6c~<;1.sions ··t'iii 9!'1 ·5/11/97, 0. peribct·cif 9 months, when p oWo 1 ·· was reco.lld to testify- ngnirt, whe::there_ Wf;Jf3 no application . : ,-. . . ' • . . ! •• . ma.de and . reasons gi vn by the Pub;l.ic 'Prose?_lltor-. f2ir recalling p Ow O 1 to __ testify. •:t -: ~ . ,;. . •• :: .- :-~-' The. trial nngistrate also gnv.en10 ruling on this 11 PP:

Court: .. -P .w'>1 ;-alled d rminded''St,ill on. oo.th) 1 :.:--;o me this -----•-· . :- .. -- . -: shows t:rib:t the Publ'ic Prosec:u.tor' was'. in. -nbsoltite control o:f_: the ,-5:.1, ·· ·· ·. · . · -:t,, Proceedings, ana.·'::the trial 0 Jfugistrate acted as a' ;poter or __ (· .. \ . . , stenegrapher. This was a serious. ctbdico.tic:m pL~ nobl~· uty that - the trial rnagistrte permit_ted, herse,lf -to ?<>,-.,<And iiih11 a witness who testified 9 inonths ·ago, cqnnot'l~gally be said t'{'be still on ·.,:·. . .. .. .. '• .. - oath, in wh_~ch ·case•·~v o.ssuming 'fher'~ was v"tlid reasons for PoW.1 t6fcbe recal:J__f;)d to ·t~·stify, s_lle ou.ght' to be sworn o.gain. And w4n .. :.-· what she statd,. inHi&ily on 3/2/97, . Tti/ evidence P .w. 1 gave t.his .- · ·. · time .. -- :'·· " • .... >-)<:···--- .. --- ... :· .- -• equare:Ly lrm:>,l9ated-the appellants with marvellous specificity,-- ·. ·-•:-,.I._:.,:··•-----· . . ,_.. ..· .-- an obviouif:.;(eult of q rehearsal. Tt ~~s totally·· new e\ridehce o ·-:-.;... - -.: ,. ' . And worse still, on 5/11/97 th~\ appellants we:r:-e not given oppot_u- ·:· nity to cross-examine P. W .;1 on her second evidence: which directly incriminated tp,-,ppellants. -;::.1-,.;,· . . : Now for nine,k9) · months from . ..3/2/97 to 5/11/97; the court . - -.··. .- ·'. simply continued ,adjourning the cas ·without any rgard to the dictates of section .225(4) CPA, 85. ·:tt would hnve been ii different.-.:· case jf the tria,;l,A110.:gistrnte had adverted her mind to the provi- sions of setion 225{4) CPA; 85, but for :rea.sons to be recorded, had found it legally, fitting to adjon the case sti_ll further Up ' ... ··. to an aggrate of over· 2()0' days,. ·Ev:e'.n-'as$Utn:ig that section 225(4) ..... ~ -. . :.,.. ..... '!, t. -:. ' ' . ..

. .

• 9 CPA, 85 was discretionary to the cour.-t in its application, yet it cannot be said that the trial magistrate exercised her discretion . ii/regard.· to thnt · section bec;,.use 1:>):'le acted quite obliviously of that section. That sectj'.cm was enacted for a, purpose to promote jutice by speedy disposal of caseso 'L: • .:..t.i:; section wns not meant to be a doll or an item of decoration in the CPA, 85. On the foregoing considerations and the authority of the Court of Appeal, o.nd the vulnerable irregularities that the court perpe- trated in the conduct of this case, I find that there was a mistrial court, · ·· - · •---·· . - .... before the trio.l subordino.te / which involved a serious .miscarringe -, .. it of justice on the appellants. Consequently, I rule thnt·:t}1e proceedings before the trial subordinate court were a nullity, the same are hereby quashed, Similarly, the conviction that was entered. on the appellants by the trial subordino.te court is quashed, and the sentences are set asite, Due to the prominent irregularities which tanspired at the trial, which caused a serious miscarriage . of justice to the appellants, I find that justice does not call upon this court to order a retrial. I therefore nllow this joint appeal. I order the immedinte release of the appellants from prison, unless they are further held for another lawful cause. Appeal allowed. 29/9/99 Coram: M.D. Nchalla, J. For Appellants - Absent, do not wish to attend For Republic/Respondent - Mr, Hagoma, PSA CoCo Robert Nyabange Court: Judgment delivered in court, in the presence of Mr. Mo.germ, learned Principal State Attorney, and in the absen9e of the appellants who did not wish to be present, at Mwanza, • 0 •• /1 o.

• 10 this the 29th··day of Se:gtember, '1999,r Right of appeal explained. AT MWANZA : ,29/9/1999 :;I ' . ;,, -t .,. - ,•- .... '~ '"'];,,.• .. i•CJJli[f :cf/fa \ / M.oD • NC HALLA ,-_} -- '. - .• f ·' .• " -. -~- :.:. JUDGE ·•,"'. .. f.' ' . ..