Regina Ramadhani vs Republic ((HC) Criminal Appeal No. 57 of 1993) [1999] TZHC 496 (13 April 1999)

ll"" i NACKAU JA 2 J. IN THE BI Gil COURr vF TALZANIA .AT TABORA APPELLATE JURISDIC"l'ION (Tabora Registry) (IlC) CRIFilNAL APPEAL N0.57 OF 195 3 OJIGINAfJ CRHJ:NAL CASE N0147 OF 1993 OF TIIE :orn·rroar COURT OF NZEGA DI5TBIOI1 AT NZEGA. Before g J oD. NAYAYA Dis t:dct Mag:i.s trate Versus (Original Prosecutor) J U D G M E N T Regina Lazaro, a guest house attendan·t, and Barack 0100 Elija., her manager, were charged with s_tealing c/s 265 of the Penal Code. Only the first accused -was fou.nd guilty and convicted as charged. The second accused was acquit)i;ed. As it -will be demonstrated there was hardly any ·evidence which made out a case to ans-wer a&,ainst any or both of the accused persons. It all started with one lodger who :frequented the Nzega Ou.est Rottse, where the accused persons were working. She identified herself as Obiku Saidi (P.W.1). She was lodged in.room 6 of that guest house on 6th August, 1993 where she s"tc!yed with her paramour. It would appear that al·t.1::iot1gli she trusted him with her intimate favouxe she did not find him safe with her valuable property. It -was on that account that she surrendered her handbag to the first accused. She <lid 11ot tell th·e 1st accused what the handbag contained; this w~ revealed on 9th August, 1993 -when she demanded her property back. On that day she clairo.ed .that her· money~ a good sum of SbB.eo,ooo/=, and a pair of sandals had been picked frorJ her hahdbag . . .The appellant denied having interl'erred -with the complainant's property, insisting that the handbag had been kept in a room where all other lodgers I property is kept. The matter was ultimately reported to the police who had the accused, persons . ,to arrested and taken to cour't.LanSwer the charges which were consequently pref erred · agai:ns t them. One thing is clear from the proceedings. At no time did the· complainant revea-1 that she had money in her bag. Were it so, then whoever xecei ved it would have cotmted it. If therefore ·i;here was any 11'.0ney in her_ bag in the circumstances of. this case then the complainant had herself to blame. Nr. lvlwamporia~ learned State Atto:rney, f w.nd it difficult to support the conviction, saying it is not sound. A ctmtra:ry opinion would not accord to good and rational judgment.,

-2- Cons eCIUcntly the appel:l1 is allowed, ontiely. Conviction is quashed s entcncc and order for com-ponsa:'.ti.bn are sot asiclG• I hope this turn of cvei:.-m -Will console the appellant due to the fact that. the .s.tigm att-.-..clri.ng to th.of'-!; has been clear-ea.. She bas· alrea'.dy, I hope, served tbo whole sentence so tha.t this res u1 t might bG merely aooadepic to her. She still, nonetheldss, dos e:rves it. Un1Et3s she be· hold in cW3.tody on othel! la"Wfnl g:rounds, sh0 is hereby set Deli:vere. Appellant~ Abs<mt (at her own option) MACKANJA -~ 13.4."''