Justine Nyamilele vs The Republic (High Court Criminal Appeal No. 90 of 1989) [1991] TZHC 2006 (14 August 1991)

i-i.rl-'l!;LLi,'l't.. JUrtI::.:·ICTION JIGH COUHT ChH'1lN11L i.iJl-'l!:HL NOo 9d/b9 l,1dGIN1 .. 1 Cl-<U',11;.L CH.':i.C: NO,. 143 OF 198b UF '. 1 .l.11i .uIST.i:ilCT CvUhT 0F' ILi.L, ... .!.iISTHICT ilT KI8UTU l3KF·J,i.l!. J • .£;.· C. Mi,.':ib;.,CH.t .1:,.Sl:i• l-'HINCIPiiL 1-llibI1ENT !'Ji, .H..::.Tf<aTE .. JU,. TINE NY1 .. MIL.C:Li!. ••••••••••••••••••••• 1d?i:-•Ji;LLANT (Original Acpsed) versus 'i'l· t .i:<.c;rUBLIC •••••••••.••••••••••• • ••••• i-0.::.SfONlJENT (Original Prosecutor) J U 1 G M .I!. N T LUG.1-.KING." :<i.: J. . -- It ld the appellant at the conclusion of the hearing that his appeal w,~ without substance and stood dismissed. I reserv&d_my reasons ,Lich I will briefly set out. :.l'he a1 pellant was charr;ed with stealinc under Section 265 of the PenL Code, it being alleged that on 13th September, 1986, in Dar es Suum, he stole a Land Cruiser, Neg• No. T207 CDB, the prop0rty <,f th<:, Jorld Health Ort;aniaation (\JHO)io He was convicted . . as chart:..<d ancl sent-::nce<l to fuur years I imr risonment. It was common t:.,:Ci.,und that the ap:i;ellant was emp.lc ,-:d as a driver by ;e WHO, whiGh has offic(;)s at Luther House, an-.1 was assi_gned to the vehicle ip question. It was alsc common Lround that on the matE::ri£t1 uay, a Saturclay, he reported on Cnty and went on errands with tht:: r1::hicleo The pros..,cution case w c; th£-t at the encl of his uuties, t":!e appellant nev1:.;r returned th(; 1•,hicl(;; to LuthE:-r House Wht.tr0 it 1 as supposed to bE:: parked for th-: night, ant.l it wus never to be SP6'1 at,uino Dut :i r. hi R defence the ·:..ppllant claimed to have pc:..rked tb1.:1 v c, .... ::.. <,+- +he premist:.s at 2.3:i p.m. un the same clay. the tricl magistrate that the <:;Vitlence fl•r the prosecution estu- blished the char1.:,e.. There was, inter al:i.a, evi"'.ence of· the watch- men, FIN .. _'5, h104 un<.l l-'Jo5 1 who were on shift uard at Luther House from Satrday monins till Munay mornine, and these were positivJ that th,., apJJellc:..nt never LrL:ught back the vehicleo 1'hey knew the appellant well, they also knew his vehicle well, and they had no cause to testify fals0ly ar;ainst him. I think I in 't;be circumstances• that the: trial maistrate was entitle<l to Lelieve them and to ,. convict the appellanto •••.• /2.

') .. C. .. It was for thes~ reasons thut I upheld the ccnviction and dismissed tle &pJ,et:41• I must add, thL,ugh, thet th0 si::ntence was on the low side and it is equall.y unf0rtunc.te th&t the pr0secution Lii<l not adJ.uce evi• c.lence of the vel.dcle's value tc fc:cilit(lte an orJer fot compensation • .SG.u. K. b • K. LUG,-,KINGIRJ.;. JU1.,GE This is to certify that this is the true copy of the oriGinal.