Salum Mohamed vs Republic (HC Criminal Appeal No. 109 of 1988) [1990] TZHC 593 (27 October 1990)

R I \ \rv_ V ,. 0 C '., l L9- ~ , .'i.T TABW.A ll:.'JLLATE JU .. US:0ICTIOU IIIT.I .;OT:~~T c1n:n:AI, APPIJAL no. 109 OF 1988 OIUGL-_'.2', C.].1.IMI.AL CASJJ no. 77 OF 1988 OF TIIE DISTRICT COD,iT OF !'1.i3U. DISTRICT AT ?-IA.$1-TA Before: I. A. NY.AMA.KATO. , Esq 1 a S21aCB DISTTICT MAGTll.AX,E. SALUivl 1:0IL\ILJDI ooo o oo e a u o o o o o o o • c o o o o • " • • • o • .Al':PEL1.JU1T ( Original Accused) TBE :·:-,:s1rc •• ,. Q O O •••••• 0 t, 0 0 ,;, 0 " 0 0 0 ~ 0 .., 0 tJ O O.. n.E3P01ENT (Original ProGeouto~) Sht~breald.ng1and stealing c/s 2% (l) of the Penal Code Ca.p. 16 Vol.l I ef the Laws, i On 15th Septemoert 19SO, I quashed the appellant's conviction, set a.aide the sentence ~ ordered tho a:ppella.nt 1 a i.mi.uedia.te release from custody unless •therwiae lawfully dct2.in0d.. I reaowived my :reasons for doing 30, and the same are contained in this ju.c'.st1ent; The appellant, Salum I:.oha.~ed, na.s charged with the offence. O: ~--- and stealing contrary to oectionQ 296 (1) and 265 of the :Penal Code, He was convicted as charged. and was sentenced to five (5) years imprisor.mont. IIe t:1en apr.>ealod to this court; The proso;i'$iont s e,tidenae ua.s to the following offecta the a.pI)olla.nt is a nephew of tho comple.incnt, one Selcr.ia.ni Sal1,:u:;i (:r.u.1), and. was livin8' in the 'sa.r.10 ho-unc with f. W. 1. .•. ,H .1 om:is a. shop n l\fu.6"(1c::;. to,mship. It was :- • U .1 1 s evidence i that one day he forg-ot hio k.eyr:i on tho table and the a:ppollant took thern. On 22nd June, 1988 1 he locked his shep and retired fo=c tllc night at about 9.00 p.m. :::c;:;:t morning, he discovered t 1 .1.2,t a la.mp which used to be in t..½.e appellant• s room was misain.cr1f.'110n he wont to tho zl1op, l.lo discovc:,.ed that one bod, six metal pots, a:'ld a i1ai@:!.in3' machine uoro r.1iooing tllorcf:ror.1. IIo suspected tho appolle.nt. The appellant uas traced a:,.1d ir:101 asked in tho J?l"CS0:(100 of ono Robert Michael (l". u • 2), tho appellant said that 10 took those a.rticlcs 'boca.:usc FoU.l owod t1im shs. 5,800/=. In his tcstiraony, :PoT.l denied auin5 money to tho appellant. But a.ocol'ding o r.:r.,, :r. n. l adt1i ttod otrlnc t:'a t rJt.u:1 tc the a.p-.f)Ollant4 Tho appellant was thor.:. <1r.rostod and charged uith this offo11ce,

• .,, 2 In ::11s dofcr~co tho a1 r9ollant said that ho hrui l;e.on· ansicting :::: .1·! • 1 in :iis shoi, o,nd doinc; othoJ- 0 Lc-::)102,s::-,,1. odd jobs for I.T. 1•Whcn at lo.st ho refused to do tl10so jobs, tho co,.1::)J.2,incmt rcportocl., h:i.n t I'olico. It is c1:p:paront tlmt tho appellant- ;, . .su; uocoos to tl\c shop, and SQ l!.o cai.1:.1ot bo saicl. to havo broken i::to tho shop to which J:o hs.d a :right of accQSs, So tlio qy.ostio:: of l,roald.ng docs not artsc 1 If t~:10 a.p:pollant did. tc,l;:c tho::,o artic1co, and as tho loan1od state attorney poil1tcc.l. out, ho did co believing that }10 bad a X"ie:;b.t to ta.kc thom 1)cca:u.zc the conplairn:mt owccl him D?::coy. Thci.'O is autho:r.-i t;y- f o:r t:10 proposition t;ia:t once it is shown that a pcJ.'Son .is honc?stly asso:ctillg what he 1)eliovos to be a l2,1ifd clu.ii:1, he 4 s a clain of J:'i1.1t under section 9 of tho Fonal Code, oven tb.01,i.&:1 t: .. o right assa::ctcd is Lt:.u'oZ'ld?d in law a.nd fact, (1973) 1 RT n. 15). That was tho position of tho ap_pollant in this ;ca.so. It wa.s for tho fo:rnc,'Oi~ rcas< 7 m,:'J ,that I g,1,10,shod tho appellant's conviction, sot aaido tho sontcnco and ord.od't!d,. a-ppolJ.ant 1 a imr.iohio:to :roloao f:i;,or.1 custody . . rlss othoriso la,d'uJ.'.J.y cleinoa.. .·,·. .,. ..• ,.1 f . ' /j" .' · ... ['i • o1\ppolla.nt1 G.\Jsont. M~ 1 MWElmpoma., Sto.to .itto~r.oy for Il.op,μblio, (