Waryoba Machage and Others vs Republic (HC Criminal Appeal No. 274 of 1990) [1991] TZHC 2428 (11 September 1991)

f- -//. 5 fl,;. IN.THE HIH COUT OF TANZANI~ . AT MWANZA A F-FET,J-A_TE JUI'.)! S '1ICTION .·:.· HIGH COUT ·cIMINAr ·AFPEAJ, NO. 274 .PF 1990 ' . , .· ··. c/f CR. APP~. N0 .• 76/1991 & 16.6/1991 (0r..ig.inal C!'.'imin::il· Case No.155 cJf 1990 of the 1'istrict . Court of Mus·.Jma T)istt"ict at MusrJma.· :_ Befq're • ~ ' A ; - • • • • • • I • • .. M. J .r.ugaziya Esq., :P.es':i/J;--': M·:gis tl"'a·te) .1. WRYOBA Ml\CHAGE 1 ) 2 •·. NY,.MHi. NGA . ,Mi,\·W1- .. ) . · ,. p PET r ANT s , ,.,, cic.••c.•o•••o•••• I'.. '· 3 , BONIFHA_CE A.YOBJ-:1 · ·c 6;:: 1 gi nal · ·1\cc·1lS·ed) ... 'T.'HE· EPμBr..IC ...................... JUTJG.MENT SEKUTE, J. --r C U .TJ-i'ese ·a·re·c0_n,l1t1 a-ppea1s: •. Thi:?y ·arP.· al,)r,eals .,NJ.0274 of 199·0, '• of .1991,' an; anpa_l NJ:166: .)f 19,1 and the appellants ar.e. · Wary,)ba .,Machac,e,' Nyamh:rnaa Marwa an,1 ·s .. minhace· War.y'Jba r..=,sry~,ctively an-i wh.:) • • • • • ' -· • ' • t • r.E herP.afte,.. to be rpfe,..:l"'e1 t;) as 1st; .2,nd n-:i 3rt1 appellants r.spectivly. The 1st a,mellant v1a.s th1 2nrt accuse'i.i:lt thP. trial, while. the 2nd apn·11lnt>ws :h .ist ac-:useri The third ao'{'ellant w,1s. the .6th accuse,;. They werB t0gether with seven othPr pPrsons j.)intly chJrgert wit the offence. o,f robber-y Wi_th \r;l::il ence, c0ntrai:-y t.), SP.cti9n 285 c1nd : . •·,.. . .. ' .. 286 of th40; _Pel. Code;. The bartic.ular- f- the '.:>ffence wei;:-e that on . . the 11th day pf Mrch 1,go a 1.00 hrs. dt Sir?ri $imba villge . • ,. . • ·•• • . • . ' • . i .. • ,:i • within f-Ju~::,ma District,.· Ma;·a . . : .,. . .,. ' "58 hPads o.£ cattle .. valueil. at . -· ·--~ ·. ·. . . '?gi·::in, they joj_ntly '3:nd tGgefh(:r stole shs.640,000/= and an assortment f ;el"~~:n/i: a'n-l'Ch0u'seh,i·:r'e-ffects, the· pronPrty· of . . ' . . rnd imrM=.-ur:P.ly bE?fore su ·h thf:ft di;.-i use· actual vi:)12nce, i.e., threat by ·a subrnaC:bine gun to the. persons arounri in ord.er ,to .::,btain .J.nd •• r-etciin the .sain p,;-operty •.. t ,, At the_Pnd f:the tria, the apnellants t0gether·with ne i • V11::1bura !,aun:-nt _who was · the ,th accused at th<'! .trial .were c-.1nvicte<1. I '.'' I . . ·' • . Thy -were ttieQ f?rw::1r'.4Prl ½;.) this Court :f'">r '-sentP.nc:::e.· The rest ::>f their- : . . . :, , ... I •• ,. • •. f'>-accused were pqui tt(,"ri. · · · . . ... 3 · t Befor•the passing :>f s.enb:'!nce; •th:·anoell;:ints h:ive.3.ppealPd . ·•,,· . . . ' t0 thi~ Court aga~~st their CJnvicti □ n.' It wul·appear;the Wambura . •, ; - . J,aur-ent, the 9th aci::;.use;:i at .the trial M.s not apf)Fal ed-. . . ' ~ . . Mr ■- Naimj,re.,,· 1 "'a rn;.; C-::,unsel a'PpPat:"ed i'.)r. the 1st <:lnd 2nd '·, I • • ' •• • appellant. The .third aool.lnnt h31,' 1,.'n'1icate1: in his._p2titi..)n of. nppFal, that. hP. -iid not· v,:isl-J. t') .' b9 nr>s·ent an-i so :ne was absent at the hearing of the anneal.

/ 2 Mr. IVialamsha l earne-1. State· Ator_11ry apo;:,,ared for the epublic. Submitting ah.mt the 1st a·pel lant·;-- r_- Nasimire ·contenieri that the . purpor-teo i-iPntific-:'ltL:m -:J,f ·t;- •• . : ,-: :·- ·> ., :· 1 I'it1i was· faulty or/3nd . , . unt",:,liahle as it was n,1r'Je ,,,.,, u11fc1v,mrc:ible C.).nditi·;ns·il"n"i at nighto , . ~ Thf assailants were man:.i,,r1·u,·; t1iat acc.Jr<ling to . .the witnes·s they were .. •,. He thus agueii, in the circumsta.nces. there t-1aS., a possifiility .. . , . . . ~ .. . . . . . .. - ... . :. ... •' .. . . th.:1t rw1 coulti have bP.e.n ,mst,cik_en -i.n• pis 'J,Ul'.".ported identif:tq,tL . .in of ·•., •· \ , the 1st appellant. eference in this reg3r1 was rtlaie t.) ·the· c::ise .:.,f Mr. Nasimire further c:0ntcnded ,. ,. ·- " th:'.'.t the trial court r'li-:1 n,)t· adess itself t-', the possibility 2nd ...:n the credibility :-if PW,1 With Teg 9 rn to the question of his alleged iGntific:etiJn of the 1st appellant. Particularly because he ws the s01e witness on the: issue f i1entifiation. It .was therefore hi,s submis.sion that had the trial c.:iur.t addressed itself ·)n these issues, it.sh·.,uld have s""en that the evi-Ience Jf na ·.m the isue of io1entificatification nee1ed t.) be corr..::>horated anr'J. tht it was unsafe to act on his evir'J.ence alne in this mattero Se a}so·conten1e1 that the iit annell3nt's alibi was improprly .:· . disreg.:::rded •. Ad-iressing himself t:) the 2n1 appellant, it w.:is his submissi:n that. the truth or .)t' --· ·.::i0. ·,,,,· th~ ,:-eliahility of t_he <vidence of f>W4 with reqarr r 'is purryc:,rtect i-ientifica ti .)0 of the He contende<'I fo'I'." ':"Xam_pl_e thP. evi'1ence of this witness on the •issue af his allP:gP.rl i'ientificati•)n of the 2nri aippellant lacked d2tai1s·, that is, how aM the circumstances un1_er·which. he mane the :lll2ged irie>ntificati:m ,1f thP. 2rv:l am)ellant. -qeference in, this .. ' e:·:,nn•.·.cti,;n was IR':!rie to the case of Waziri Amani v t?. 1,so TT,'R. 25Q.:. It was further his contenti.m that the purnorted 11entific\tL:n nrl):-~,:-r:3 also tc riav:e been mc1r:le in a state of p'a°nic and con.fusi.m 's0 . much s . .) that PW4 ee1ed c·or.rh,)a tive evi<le~~. bfor.P. ,i't c.)uld ,:,.fely ... The case f Eria an Others V R 1,12 HCry Case No.1O1 wus referred to. I,ike n the case .of the 1st appellant; Mr. N:1simh:·e submitted .. . ,, . tho.t the, 2d appe] 1ant 1 s dfence ·:./f alibi was ign0red by_ the t,:-inl Mr. Mal ams ha, 1 er1r.necl State A tt )rney· s·ubmi tted that PW1 cl aimed t·.J h::ive ir'lentified the .. l st -op,· '. ,. :; ,· '.:\ ·. 9tr: ~~cusei· as. wll ::1s, an;.;ther person who was 9::>t av:1 ·• ::1ble at the trial. PW4 i1enfifiE:<i the.· • ~ ,• ! • 2nd 3ppellant·. It was however nis gf?neral c:rnt,mti >n that- tne ptirpor:ten id2ntification of the ·apl_')ellant!S .as ~ell "a's the . .)ther accused pers·:-:ns wh,> were joi•ntly charged wit_h the 21ppella.nts by the witnesses in this case, was far fr-om reliuble. ··'.J' I . \

3 . , "I"t was his contenti')n fpr examnle, :while PW3; the wife -)f rw1 claimi:> ➔ --tht ]1 'the bapr:Uts werP. dad· in w'hite shtrts, rw1 ,)n his -pat clairnP.d· in hi.s tEC>tJm·:iny: that they We?'.'e all cl'1d in bl,;Htk e'lothes. ·on··the ,)ther hand ?W4. cloimerj the s:iiti assailants er h3ndit had di ffer-eht·· atfi res, But PW1 an-1 c:,f th'.)se 1ieopl e in It wa~~ t:hel"<?fore Mt'. l'il::ile.mha 1 .<:: subriiissi:::rn, thi?se were material c;..mtpaf'Jicti•.m in the testim )tiy o:· :.:·. ·::.; _, ··.' .-,,,;ssr-s an1 eroded the CJ!lc:dibil i ty· ann veraci:ty of '.he ,., ·. tn,-sses with regarti t.) the. issue of identifica-ti0n :)f the bandits Mt- 1'- 1 alamsha also pointe1 ,mt that the inci1ent hapo0ned at night and th~~e Wus. cnfusion during the occur.ence .)f the incident. Th•e was therefor~ a -possibility that the witnesses cμld hve heen mistake" ift their ientificat,ion. He thus decl inPd to supp0rt · the e .. :m:vieti6fts that· wei:-e -nte-c:-ed qgains:t the a:ppell 1rnts, I suppose al o against the· other pers·Jn wh0 was al so c )Ovicted and hQs net apneal er! so fer-, . I have. carefully T?""rusd an-1 c:msir,ered the evi1nce .:in record . .:1s. we1·1 as the :_a_np.el;-:rnts gr.')un'1s '..)f appeal a5 l'.'a,is2-i .in th'i':ir respeetive pPtitians 6f apneal as well as C6unsels' sabmissins • . It is true th;.-poellants' c::mviction was slely b2s,2d ::m evidence of identificati?n. The Jst anpellant is sai1 to hve been identifi<l by PW1. While thP. 2nd anpellant was 'irientifi.ed by PW4. The 3rct appellant by -PWS~· ThP- 9th accusPd by PW1 an,; fW3. The inciiient hapoene,., at n~ ·. '·.·',. .": 1 q:i·'..ng by the evidence on record th,epe -was a state -')f panic, cnn:f,;.=;i 'n 7 n'i fright when this theft was bein~ executed.. A gun :Jr guns were fir"Y°i ar .. mnrJ. These a-nd as ightly ·pointed -:>ut by b::,th C.:iunsels cann...lt in my view have been fav;)urahle c.1nditL1ns under which t0 m:ikG an easy, •url!leet and rel la bl e i1enti fica tion t)f the bandits whJ perp'2trated this ::,ffence whieh I am )therwise satisfier; it was commi tcd The conflict in the tP.stimony of PW1, PW3 and PW4 with regard t..: the ~ tti're the bandits are al 1 ege,; to h21ve w::>r.n, emnh.::isizes in my view the fact th21t the quality of the evi-ience of i1entificuti)n of these witnesses was far fr~m being water.tight and r.eliable. It is· my cofisi1ereri view thc:it this evidence needed to be se»i0usly corr.ob,')rated hy 0ther evirlehce if the appell:ints' conviction W<2)ff'. to stand. Unfort.un:itely there was no s{ich corr.)h.)rctive evidence. 1

4 I am threfore satisfid it wul1 pe m-:Jst unsfe ta uphol~ thse • ~ • ••• • : ' I i: . ccnvicti0ns anri they ar.e hereby quasherJ,. The appellants are to be. • ~ • • • • ' p • • • ·- :, • • • • • ' : r8leased _forthwith nless 0th1:>i:.·wise ,J.ai..,,fully ·heid. . . • ! . : . As the evirlence in rest,ect '" ,. -h. ac -:us e-d Wambu ra Laurent ....... ' ,wh,,~1?-as not appea_leq is si.n- ... c1,· · ·, '':hat :)f the appel;I.ants. It is Iso bcsed ::.n irlentifica tLm by fW1 an--:l pW3 w.hic;h · 2s .)bserved .ti:)ve was unrf:l.ibl e to supBo":t th .c -nv~~ti :)·ri;·_ th t ;~~~e ntered hy_ th ·-tia C.::;urt. New using the revisi..mal .. power of this C~~rt unrl,er secti·.m 373 _uf the criminal ProcP.1re /ct, 1985 I W--.:>ulri and d.O herby. qush his cunvic:ti0n as wl·i. . I .r11er ta-t he. ~~ :;el eaed, :6-rthith,. unless thrwise lawfully hP.ld. The appeals are allowed. W. H. SEKUT-E · -· JUDGE . 11/9/91 .. Delivered in the presence -:Jf Mr. Munna learned State ·httorney .:!:'l.d Mr. Naiire learne-i C..)unsel on this 11th r:iay of September 1991., At ·Mwa nza., 11th September 1991. ·} .· /· -J:' .· '