D.P.P vs Ahamad s/o Mahimbi (Economic Crimes Appeal No. 1 of 1990) [1991] TZHC 2057 (17 July 1991)

\ . ii IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA AT DAR ES SALAAM ..::a-,,, .. ..-,.u:..a~ •• ,.. ......... 1.. ...... .. ;. •• ECONOMIC CRIMES APPAL NO. 1 OF 1990 I . ,; (From the decision of the Distr:ict Court of MA.HENGE at ULANGA in Criminal No. 2 of 1989) D. P • P, ••••••••••• , •• • • • ••• ~ • ,• . ••• • •••••••••••• • .AJ?PELLANT versus AHAMAD s/o M.AHIMBI . ~ ~ ••••••••.••• ; •. . - ........ ,.RESPONDENT JUDGMENT --.,..-a=.,s.,,.:;.,, ', ··--... -..- ~JAN.~~&, l~ . . The respondent AHMAD. M.AHIMBI was tried on a charge containing one count allegine corrupt. transaction. s:211 .. trg para- graph 2 of the First .Schedule to and section 59 of the Economic and Organised Crime Control Act, 1984, as read together with section 3 (1) of the Prevention of :Corruption Act, 1971, an~ was acquitted~ The particulars of the .offence wexe that the respond- ent, on or about the 1st day of October, 1989; at ·Mahenge Town- ship, in the District of Ulanga., Morogoro Region, being a person employed in the public service aa a nistrict Health Officer, corruptly obtained Shs.10~,000/== from Furahini Kian?i in order to ... . ~ , ' forbear to take legal actions against the said Furahini Kiangi " · .. for contravening heal h regulat·"ions · in .. his hotel business. "-- ,· 'The Director of Publ::i.P Prosecution, (DPP) was· aggrieved by ~ . .. . ,:-~ the acquittal of the respondent and he filed this appeal against . ') r,- it_. ,Mr •.. Sengu_ji/ State Attorney, argued the appeal before me on ·• .•-"behalf df the D.P.P. Mr. Mr. Massati; learned advocate, f3;PPeared .for the respondent. The evidence led t~-- adduqid py the prosecution to provi'.he ' .. '<: . • .. ·., .... ,_ . , ! ' • , a,llgations against the .. 1:'es·.p6n.dent wa$ in·two main parts: that by ·the complainant Furahini Kia}1gi (PW1) and that relating to the _time of the arrest ofe. the respondent. .'. .. .. 't ... The complainant testified .. . a-a· 'follows before the Court bel'ow: ~ . .,., , ,· ttAt the moment I live at Mawasiliano .f1ahenge •. I am a~Businessmzjl.. I am not a na:tive of this District. . I came here,in 1986. I have two businesses, a hotel and a shop. I know ohe Ahamad Mahimbi. He is the accused in the dock. J came to.know him in April 1989. I do not remember the · date, but one Musika who works in the Health Offices with accused •- introduced me to accused as a District Heal th Officer· •. After that Musika told me that he would eat at •• •·•. /2 '

---

,,

3 The complainant on the 0th er }tl.nd gave te 8 timory which was to the effect that the.first ·appellant and the other appellants who are her daughters wantonly and for no apparent reasons hurled a torrent of insults at her and assaulted her~ As if that was not enough they tore her dress and in the course of the scu-r-ffle. f!l°he lost her money which she estimated to be to the tune of shs .1000/-. This versio_n was sup1Jorted by the ·lone witness she called to testify on her behalf. Taking the evidence on its totali.ty any judicioas mind will not hesitate to find t'b.at the.re was no basis to gron<.i a conTiction. The first appellant·had undoubtedly raised a reasonable doubt as to hs guilt to warrant an aquittal. As regards the rest of the ijppellants the evidence against them was thread bear. 4 S such no conviction should have been ground against them. This score alone is sufficient to dispose off the apreal and I need not go further. , In the final analysis therefoie I m bound to find and hold that the conviction is against the weight of evidence and cn not therefore be suistain( d. It is accordingly .quashed and the sentence iwposed thereon is 1·et asid~. If the finei and the cowpens~tion haie been paid they should be refunded forthwith. It is eccordingly ordered. 17/7/91 Court - The judBment is read in the resencc )fall the appellants who have appeared in person and Mr. EJeyella for the Republic. ~~'· .. , I ..- ·-' . 1.1/....v..l c..,...,._) tt.... J.,.v 1.(-., JUDGE 1 r/7/19• ---··