Pius Mapunda vs The Republic (Miscellaneous Criminal Cause No. 63 of 1990) [1990] TZHC 23 (17 December 1990)

-- IlT TIIE m Gil COUTI.T OP TJUIT.Z.AHIA AT DAR ES S/•k4AM MISCELLLU 1 1EOOS CRil-UllAL CAUSE HO. 49 OF 1990 In the natter of an application for MIL .APPLICATION ancl In the nattor ~ er. Ccso Ho. RM 5/90 In tho Distriot Court o::f' Kibclla Distrio.,li a.t IG.bnha BENEDICT M, IrezL'lll.IIADI Vs REPOl3LIC

RULIHG Whis was an application for bail pc1tc.line trial~ ?ho a,pplicant and two othor parsons aro ohari1od bef oro the Resiclont Magi strato rs Court at Ki bah.a with tho of:f'onco of armed robbcry 1 it bcini1 alleged that on 22 June, 1990 they sto1o at gw.~ point a vehicle and vro.":i.ou.s eoods all valued at 0,000,00?/=. Tho oourt refusecl bail citinc; s,.140(5) of the Criminal. Prooocluro A.ct, 19D5, hence this appligation. t will not cro into tho fact that tho Chrunbor Sut-:1ii101113 is taken out uncl.or the provisions of tho Crininal Froaodmo ii.Ct while the supportinc a.fficlavi ts oi to tho provisions of tho Eoononio ;:,ncl 0r£sonisod Crime Control Act, 1904,. I I ara relieved that M:r. Maira ~or the applicant saw the anonaly and its oxisfo11.00 is no bar to oonsicloring tho application 011 its raori ts., The [;l'ound forcnost advanced 1Joforc r.10 was -tha.t tho charge is trmpo<l up. I was tolcl that whereas tho otfonoo is allq;cd to have 1Joon oor.imi ttecl on 22 June, the applicant was in fact··ri.r:r0stoc. on 14 July. It uas therefore D.1'{1UOLl tha.t bocn.u.so the cha.rt!O was trutlpec.l u:r,, ·l;hc applicant h&l' nothillG' to fear and would, if released on bail, rol;Ularl,y n:l;tond his trial. Additionally. I was told that the applicant will not tonpo.r With invostirrn:iiions, had reliable· sti.rot;i.os and will abide by ru.l tho tcrr.1s and con.di tions of bail to be inposod• Mrc Mc.iro. mode no ro:f oronoc to s.1413(5) ci tccl by tho Resident J'.U:ll;'istratc in rcfusine bail. On the other hrotcl, - tho n.pplication wo..s rosistecl by Mr, Matitpn., loo.med cov.nscl for tho Repul)lio-. I consider irrelevant tho diffoxcnoc in the elate of·thc allcffod offcnoo and the dr/Ge or oixounstnnccs 6-:f the applicant 1 s arrest fo1· tho.t proves no·~hl.nc .. In rmy case, whether or not tho applicant is facinG n. true ohe..t>G'C is not 0, m-'Gt0r for invcsticc."'i;ion in this axorciso ;)ut ono to be plU'suad at tho trial. The ±olo- vant question buforo this Court is 11110-'Ghox tho applicant is cha.rG"od with an off onco knot-m .,Go law and what that off 01tco is. As I have indicated ho is :fo.c:i.11c; ....... /2

1· --· - -- ~~cr.e-LlQli i-obl1e. But sootiOll. 14D(S)(e) of tb.o Crii:linal Prooocl.uro Aot denies hcil to MJI' person cb.araod 1-n·th, an offence which consists of a soriou.s assault or threat of violenoo to .not.her parson, or of havinG or possessil1e- a firearm 01: an QXJ.jlosivo. Tho applicant fc.oos a chargo which alleges viol.01100 as well as possession of .o/ firearm. It is lmown, on 'the other hnnd, that the provisions of s,14G(5) a.re I:lalldatory and I was not add reseed on D!lJ' o.speot of this prov.ision"' In MY case, tho offence of a.mac\ robbery is a rrro.vo one, oro.-ry.1.nff a r.rl.11imUL1 sentence of 30 years• · imprison-:-' ment as well as twolve strokes of ioorporal punishtlent.. Few, if' any, would crz,acefully m~ t the prospects of suc!l. an award and a. court of law would prudently be 011 its guard when oonsic1erine; bail. I ai;1 not porsuncled that th-e oppl.ioo.nt oould be amo11G the ~ptional few. The application is f o:r these reasons dismissed • ~ es Sala.am 5/11/90 ~ra for A pplioo.nt Matupa for Republic. .. 40' K.S.K.' WGAfO:NGIRA JUDGE: