Clement Lameck vs United Republic (High Court Criminal Appeal No. 106/1989) [1991] TZHC 2678 (12 September 1991)

!!9.1.Qt!, J ,, Ill THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA AT MBEYA .APPELLATE JURISDICTION (Mbaya. Registry) . . •. ,· j HIGH COURT CRIMDTAL APPEAL NO. 106/1989 (Original Criminal Ca.se No. 43 of 1989 of the Distriot Court of Mbeya District a.t Mbeya) BEFORE, M.O.Co KA.JERI - 'P.R.M. CLEMENT LA.MECK ·••o••··••oo••·••o•• APPELLANT (Original Accused.) Versus S UNI'lED REPUBLIC••••••••••••••• RESPONDENT . · . ( Qrlgina.l Prose~) . JUDOEffl. The appellant, Clement.:tiok was-jointly chat'ged with wiothai- WlJ. did not appeal with Rbber;y c()ntrary t_o seaiio:i 285 and 286 of the Ptmal Coc!e, They ware both found guilty· and sentenced ·to eight yews impri.eMm~t. ~ The Ol'igina,l eeoond. a.c·oused, .Emmanuel .Petr:> was·, it would appear, . ~· . . . satisfied by both oonviotion and sentence. 'lnd so did not appeal, The ap:pellant,_ thr~ugb. his advocate, one __ Mala.ba. J.trai1g0Ie, a:rgueo that the prosecution witneS9E!f3 did not ia.cnt~- properly the appellant• b • , • ····· <' • ' clafence also put U-1) a de:f'en of an alil>i which he argues ought, to have been -beliewd. · The fa.eta of the <;m$e for the proseo- l.tion are tha.t PWs.2 d,· 3 1la4 on 20/10/87 collected mo~y from Msw.;Lswi ;o pay for crops ~d by Shauhambul.e liur!:!-1 P.>:.-imary Cooperative ~ociety. On the way .they were . ., .. . . wa.tlaid by tho two a.ocused persona, tN:ear.ened to be aia.shed. with paitga.s a.nd. robbed of the money to the tune of sh1e291,821/•• It wa.a Qn ~ daylight and they identified the accused · horn they lalew am. who lived· 1u tbs same village 'iswi ~ worked in tllc N.M.c. god.own as porten. Soon. , ...... after the robbery tb.E: o.ooused disappetn'Od from the villag&., !lhe appellaiit ,, was arrested a month later ,fu Dar es SaJ.a.:.un. The compla-1-be :reported the ,, ma.tter to the police .i'.lillediately and nameJ. the a.ppalla.nt_ as ono '-o:r the . . .. . . ,,...., . ... . \ robber&e ·1n ,his d.e:f'e1 c.e the appellant put up _t;b.e def en® of .an alibi am called . . .. . . . .. \ otJa winess. The witn-i.'3s told the trio.l court she knew nothing a.bout. this ca.so and does not know ;;he-th.er on the ma:t0ris.l do.te the a.ppel.J.et wa.s a.t the.village or not.

. ' .. .,,-.·

• 2 - ·'lh.e lea.med Prinoipal"Resient Magistrte arrived at a just decision. . . The appellant :was well known·to the oompla.ipa.nts and the robbery took place on broad day lgllt. Besides the complainants an independent lady who was looking :.for firewp.od let .. the complainants her panga. when she saw them cha.sing the a.cousea.· She too ·(PW.5) identified. the a.ppella.nt. So the P.R.M. was justified in not doubting the i4entifioation. The defence of an alibi was-rejected by the Principal Resident Magistrate correctly •. ·: First it had n~ notto9 as re-quired by the CriminaJ. Procedure A?t 1985 'section ;'.>' ,:,-,· , Then the efenoe . lf_i tness Mashak.a allegos·"t; know not whether the appellant was present-.a.t the village. on . that 'day or not~ The complainants allege· h~ was .ai 'tb.e soone a.1?(1 he ··_d.i~_a,ppea.red forn .the village. immediately a.tter the robbery. -. This appeal" was admitted to heing ID3rely ·because :t't htJ.s a.: ., d.Gfenoe counsel. Otherwise it has· no it· at all tuld- should have been -sttl1llll8.t'ily rejected.,_ I therefore dismis.t -the appeal a.go.inst both conviotion . . ,. . -. · and sentence• j' .. --L:2 JlJ'DGE.: . . 10/9/1991., .. ' ·.• ,.' , ..... ·, . - :: ... \ I ' ' \ \ \ \