Thomas Marshay vs Republic (HC Criminal Appeal No. 166 of 1990) [1991] TZHC 2437 (25 September 1991)

.,. ,. '. , . t , ; ' ,, l. I • • •, IN THE HIGH COURT vF 'l'AN.ZANIA AT ARUSl-OC' .-jt.• -,~ •. . - • .:, ' ;, ; - •. . . . t .. : ,,. -AP.'¢b'L'ATE 'jtJRISOICTION . : r HIGH. -cUR'l' "CRIMIN.AL APPEAL No.· 16 OF l"t ---- (Orii'itjal ·.criinlria:i: :ca~~- 'No.' ·s of ·199e of the DisttI'c.t Court· ·c>f Mhi District at Moshi - · BE~-◊-ki; :g·~ s.· MAFURU, Esqi.., D/aistrate) ·~~~ •••• :·: - •• f ., • ~ •• 'l'HOMAS'':MAR!iHAY, • ·.·• ••••••••••.••••. • .. • •• APPELLANT • . ~ ~ -•, • - ' • •• ._--r ,"'! ~ ' • I • •' ·· (Origi·oal !,\ecused) . · ----: , . . . . •' ~ . . vers1;1s .... , . . . . .. . , ,,. , ·-··· • •• • ,:. • • 4 THE. REPUBLIC ·• •••••••• -• ••• •. ••••• • Hi~~()Ni::,ENT:,:. .-·,·-:;•··.•.;-. •"f ,._. (O.tigiJ,~,Prosecutor) .. · J.'iRO?fo J • . · .. -·--· l .. ..:.-- ·• Th appellant Thomas Marishay is chall.!nging the judgment of the Di.strict Court of Moshi i~ which he was convicte1 of , . . stcal:1.::-!g mo'cor vehid1·;-....J)arts worth .shillings 486 ,SOI/=:= ant1 was gi V·:C!l"l. a.--:ndi:ti'oTt'aY..::is'di'rge.-.. He was also or.-terer1 to pay compcnsc1·::ion to the :complainant in the case • . .. ,. , _,,.. , .... , When ···r .hear-. t,e. · appeal I all owe" it by quashing tho conviction a:nd se·ttfng asi-4e both the orers for con-'itional ischarg: an.d compnsation. I reserve-1 reasons which I ttow give in -chi::: judgment. The appellant is an uncle of the complainant Raymonr1 Anrea Mars hay (P. w.1). He ha"" alleger1ly borrowe a total of shillings •. 40 1 000/= from the complainant with which to_repair a motor vE:hiclc, prc:sumabiy a Minibus with registration number _ _Ms-.·9s_a2. ": ... The:'! appellant is saiA to have faile-1 to repay the loan anr! gave the complainant the minibus as a 1J.e~ or security for off paymen·l:. Subsequently the minibus was foun~ strippe-1ave.ral of its parts value,1 at Shillings 486 ,Sit/=. .Th•= appellant was prosucutei1 anr1 corwicte'1 for stealing those parts. Oud.ng the trial of tl'ic case P.w.2 - Detective Constable Mbogo who was the investigating officer in the case tol1 the trial court that he ha,1 interrogate,1 the appellant's son who told him h had the· missing motor vehicle earts. The son of th~ ••••••• /2

•, ...

. 2 : ;· .. . : . The sonl:of t~ appeilant· was not 'ho.;;,ever call~ ... as a witness ·~ . ' ~ to confirm or C,eny ·that he ha.-f posses:sion of the all_ageri I ·, . stol~n motor vh.icle pai;-ts ;· or from whom he ·m-ay have obtainer1 . . ·-·. . . ... ·theni. lh ffct,· there was no evi,;ence ·to '}rove that it was th<:! appellnnt.· 'who eanibalis~~--the i-nibus without the knowle,1ge ann consent of the con:,lainant. 1. The claims by P .• W.l an" P.--2 , • • ,"•;. •. : -◄• ,c . that 53: wa'!l .th appeliant wao took away the minibus from Yusuf Ge.rage- ·anr, l_ater -rcmovci,1 · Pelrts from · 1 t were thus ~ · unsub:3 ·catiated - ei ter by "'irect or ci,·.rcums tanti,,al evience. The appllant's rlefence at· the_ trial my have been unimpressive:: but a w0<1k defence is not iic::!cessarily Jz;oof of guil. Contrary ) to wh':l·c th'= -q:-ial coμr_t: tl:l . .ought, the ·prosecution hari not proved its case beronri ,a reasoabl Aoub·~•- .• It was for the above ;;~a.sons that I allowet1 the appeal. ;-• At Arusha: · 25/9/1991. JAM/H.TI< • .......,.. __ , ... . t . . .. .·, "'C .· · __ , __ .·- .. ' ~ (J. A.· Mroso) ·JUDGE