Ayubu Mbano vs Republic (HC Criminal Appeal No. 85 of 1991) [1991] TZHC 2435 (18 September 1991)

. -rrr-- cou-T c .. -rrr-T nTI-"''T --o R5 OF 1("1 _: .;J .. t ' '.·.,. -J.ll J.i, ... -C"l:.;J..,_, i',; 6 _. I ,.1/ 0:. 0 4;i:aa.l Criminal C2-se l-Too232 of 1990 of t::-.e Diot::-ict Cou1"'t of Son.gee, :District r.t 3o11c;oD- :J0'.:o::..·e .I,i~ •. L r.:nUXJ6u;re, ::JGCJ..o 3 D • Eagistj:c,to Vei:'st.i.s .o O O O o O :i o O O O O o o O O O .. ICSPO?ID_l:"T JUDGr:-Ji1T The. appellc,nt un.s charged w;i. t1 stedii1[;· ';j3• agent, tho:1 con-1ricted and sentenced fi-.ro ro22s imprisorm1ento !Ie. :vri.o o.xlo1"'ed to :ref1.-.;:1cl s.:o.GolXXJ/= beins the. vcl.uo of 6 bags of 'beans. ::::o nmr a:9pea1s to th:l_c cot:.::-t. Ther .,wc:..s 07::_a.c::1.cc th2.t a group of peo:_ile had hi::ocl c. lo::-:."'t f:i."'Olll 2.luVUllla ,·\ Co-oper,ttivc Union i.o tr2,nspo1t thei:? bc{';s o:? foodstuffs to :J 1 ;c.1c,2Jll fro_m Sorlt'5ea. The r:J:,:icll;·,nt wa,s one of them r1irl tho oomple.in2.nt ?-:1 >.-l. 20 bags ·of beans c.r:..d {;hon r::2, the drive1"' stated. t;::.rt the loI':i.'Y uc,D f\·.J.l u::_) tl1e compleinant deci<l.ccJ. not to 102"1 t:1emo Joucv-e:,; evidence s~~ons ·c::.:.'.t e.ppeJ:lc.nt pursuaded t:1e con::;J.2.:a2,,nt to loc.d. six i)c.:;s· c1w he und.e1·took to clolivcr them to complc:,inzmt 1 s c6 0:1t in D 1 SaJ.a.amo Tb.c.t 2.:Jpcllant was ont:::1.stect 1·ri tl 1 .' t=ic bags was f1.u1:• c;'.i:':-,..'oborated by tho dr.ivo:i:· r:72 and. his tv.rn7)oi (P:T3) ~ .l.ccordine to ·the ev-idonce. the ap:pelln.nt nov-o:: delivered t;:o ci:: 1Jt.gs to PUl 's agent in D 'Sdc'.cJ:1 !.10.:- did l10 ;ive tb.o i:!0:10:, to P'iL Tl1e z-000::Ll o:Z p:roceodil')Gs shows tl1at tllo::,:,o ro::e attempts to settle t::c mdte:;:- out o:Z 001.w.·t Jetween· the fe,thcr of tho r.1):?ollo.nt :md. the f.:t:10:;:• of :P?lo NothirJG CL;:10 to }?Orto The 2.ppellcnt 1foo1 c2.lled upon to r:1;::2...:e l1.:to defence declinoc.1 to do so allegi thi.t l:o he.cl no fa.i th in tho t:,:icl ii128'is:t1ate. Conte ""'cd +,,- ... t '.\o i-r 0 , 0 .?JY:ic1te1~ In groG'ld 1 2.l'ld. 2 of appeal t:iG 2.)J:;?0112,:1.t U>,,L u_ • i.. uni: r=.U. and with.out ci:?:Zo:.-ui11G :1im an Oi)portuni ty to bo he2,..i.--d.. T,::.o c,::):::icJ.L- nt cannot be hec..rd. to 1.:Ho::- tncse c:-.llcJations. .I:0 uts infm.:-med oi . i::f, ~:ij.1ts and ho decid8d not to ce;.r .:: .. nything clloging lc:.cl:: of confidence in tb.o fa:iz1l magistrate. ro c,'.',i.1.not cornpl.;,in w!12t boioll :1im because o<' .. i:•.t; 01r..1 default, '

2- In ground 3 of appod the appellant :h::s stat0d tlld ·i;:18 t:. ::.2,l court has erred in not civing e ruling to, an applic.:1tion for 2.. 2.11eo of venue. The rccoi"'<l docs· not. show any such applicetion that the c2,so Jo t:::-iod in 2-notho:r plo..ce o? 1)ofo:re •;an?t.hor magist:tdoo Tho rulirlf,' c.:xl 02-i::.:,,· ruling was e,t th() close of t;.10 p:.•osecution cs.so ,facn 2-::,::.,ollaJ;lt w2.s L"li'o:2nocl of l1is defence right. Iie opted. to remain quiet. Tho a,ppollc,nt 1c.s 8.I'gucd in grouncl 5 of c.ppoal the.t tho tui.1 mae;istrate has considecd ext;.•anoous mat tors tk:.t ap1)0llant 's futhc:.· uent to P:-11. praying to pc:y b2..ck tho bc./SS of.bcansQ This contention h2.-s 10 :)c"Bis at all. Tho complaincnt ot2.tcd in his evidence· in c::.1icf thusg 11 T~~e .:ocunod ,m: s 0rough t hc1'0 o.nrl. the the accuoed I s fc.t:10::? cc.r,1e at mine wi t:1 t110· r.ccuscd to e.pologiso ---1.d. told r.10 tlld J:;hcy will pay. Er :fdher told t:.1em th2.-t if that ,ras tho case tl1oi1 t}10:y must incrcr.so t:10. CJ11om1t. r-.;.1d fr.Huro to that condition tl10 c2s0 to continue to 'he :police o They lJJ?or,1ised a pc1yi1,c da;;- :iu-t they wm:-o not seen. tt Tho appellr.nt dicl.. not ci·oss-cxemin0 p:n. ·· on thiso T:1is ovidc:1co nas · riot . extra.nous but int::dnsic and was, propGrly tl;:on into accoL"!.j_lt in convicting the appcllt,nt., · • Tho ::1opu1Jlic llr,ve supported tho judc,,'.1eat of tho t•it,l c<;>t:::.t. Tho· evidence oi :p:r1' pW2 ru:.d P113 is so cloa:;: t:2.t in tho 2,bscnco / of 8, probable defence uhic:1 uc.o cr,pablG of crc2,tine; so.a.o: doubt no trihuEc..l ;:.•oporly directing·: itself -to "tho cv-idcnce end tJ.10 lc'.1-T would. ·acquit t:.1e 2,pziell2.nt in this casco ·T.cc conviction is upheld. Tho -ap:pollc:,,11t !1.:s boon scntcncod to 5 yca::s imp:;;isorunont. Tddng into accotll?-t. tho i.12..:::ir.lrn:1 penalty fo:.' tho offcnc char 0 ed and t! .. r: n:..1u1Jo:: ·of br. 0 s .. -involved I CJ;1 of t;o viou thr.:t t'.10 sonto,100 or 5 yet.rs ir:ip;.:isonment is· o·n ·the high si&e ;:_:1d. too severe. That sentence r:.ftc'.i'.' duo conside:.·ction is reduced to tiu:-oe ( 3) yce.rs imprisonmGnt. In the result t:o C.:;?J?Cd- against conviction in di:::ir.d.sscd ~ apfJC81 c.Gainst _sontcnce is r· ,t1-- c.,llowod as indicdcd 0,1.)0-.ro. Dated we. cl_cl:tv0I'cd 2.t r'ltWe.l:'e, this ·1t"h day of Septou:o:•:', 15:91 in the abs,mcG of c.p:,cllc.nt r-11d r-1:;:-. Sa11ga.wo 9 lor..:.';1oa_ State ~'l.tto1··1oj- o. ~~-s:s-A r -1c -- Judge