Isaya s/o Njau vs Republic (HC Criminal Appeal No. 93 of 1990) [1990] TZHC 292 (3 October 1990)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA AT ARUSHA APPELLATE· JIJRI-$DI<;:'l'l. ON ·1-rrGH COURT CRI1"1I1,.j'AL APPEAL NO,· .. ;93 OF 199 •. t ~ ... • . . (Original Criminaf/Case· No. 24- of l99t,- of thie Tiistrict Court of Hai District at Hi - B.i;:FOR~: So .. MUSA, ESq.,. District Magistrate). ·(' ,._ ...... 1..9<"... • • . ... . • . ·; ·I8AYJ~.,: s/o'· NJhU o ~ ·o.; o o.o o o. ~ o o ••• o ••• oAPPELLAN!r • : •. • .. ,.. · · · (Original. Accused} versus ·:rH:E R.ii:li UBL.LC. •., .... .,., ... o. o o· • o o o • •••• • • RESPOND£,[l,ll' , 1·'. .... {Original Prosecutor) .... · JUOGEMENT .• ·;·£. ::·. ··; The. appell-ant I$.·aya s/o Nja_u· was convicted by the .o~ tric~ Court of Hai for the of'f-ence o£ Ob.ta.ilu.n,g p.per-ty ·by: f}.se prete.ne~ •. et:.ra.ry to sect.tori 302 of the Pentll Code. t ·xt had been•. alleged. that he obta-ined a ti-actor -ty .. valued at ... sh..illin9.s 3-0,000/• from one Px-ank Kisa.n9a by falsely· . .r::-epresen;l:ing. thi;it the owner of the tracto~" on,e Dfl'id l{i.a~ had q.llowed him to '_colle~.t it. ,_9n: being convited ,·. he was ·sentenced to 12 months pri.s-oo.men_.and wa. ordered· to compensate the oner. shi11 30,.000/=-• He f_el..t aggrieved by .the conviction, sentence and . ·•. '' . . . . . ~ · .. .,, . th~. compu§ati.on os;dQ;.'., '4Jnd i w-ough hj...Q:, ad'l'OC•te• .M/S Shayo, ~ ... - . . ' . : . . : ,Ja & .. Comparw- has. appeal.ed ·to. this court. •:, : .. , . On,.:! of the. groμds .of appeal was that the trial district : ~~gf t~·=: shiftetj, ,t·e b'1en of .proof to the appellant. With ;rs_P?Cty. it it> tr.u~ the iri~l magistrate appears to have done so. · .. ,In ,h:Ls. jud_g_ent Jh·e ,trial magistrate said at page 2 as fpllows - '· ".uoe,;it could- be _seen that P.W.l and PoWo2 , inc+usiv:l)" P.W.3 testif-ied that the accused (now appe,!-lant)· obtained a tyre ·of the tractor by false prten,ces, whereas no .wi')ere in the. defenc_e of the'. acc\lse_d. h- has -put .. to the· court t)1at he-is .of qui:lrrel Gsic) with. these Witnesses.

2 It is therefore .surprising on my side that the -·::.:.... ~ .· .. >.·- ·... ... . ·:. ;·, _ : .. case against the accsed_., is cooked for no ·i· : ; --·rea·cins:? .·)ioev~~~--\tt ii: how. the accused to establish ,the ,criti'trcii.ry. "that he has not , ., :9J:?ti~~J · i.; .. :Y-~~ ::.:Mq\u.i~~iy (sc) that not . --········- · .. by false pr'etences".... . :· ThA .. lii.s-t---t-erref.e. sh'~~~:-•a"t i'tie .. tria/magis~.rte was exp~~-cing•tJie app-e;Llent to ·prt,\f~~·to the co_1:}f"t __ the prosecution •.. : • ·-! :- •• . . case ag-ains'c him.· was false. Th'at clearly. is a misdirection . ._ ~ :.! •' .r : ; . . . . : ' . and ·i:h,::: tr'ial magistrate appears to have mi_sa_pprehended the law~····--The 'inisappr.ehension is clear from the casa··he cited as ' .• :,•: • • ,,;',) • - I •. • -::,.,•· autho,rity. In the caS'e .. of·1t~"v. 1?WJI MEHTA (1946) E.A.C.A., 80 rough .and uncut diamo_nds were f·ound on th~ pmises ·-of the _ . __ app~lla~~~-;i.p'. ',i:a. cas~,-i.; :The --s. M:rican Court of Appeal held . tha the finding .of diamonds in. the possession of -the 'l"'•··-~~· ... ~ . '· . . t I' • • • • • -::....· : , •. --: . .. ... ,appel,-_lait 1:-a_;ise4: a. PF.ima (ac;:-:1-e:, ~~~.-f ppssession:· a-gainst him . ,: · ~~dr .sct);pr,L 3 ... Cl.),JF.: the Diamia~.Indus.try Pot~~tin OJ:al}C'-°: ~ Cp 1! ;. ~ 93 <:# , the LaNf3_; of '.Bari-gai;iyika. . The burden of -~~init.thai;: the. pos.session was lawful ·-was o hirtt'. • .:That was , .. -: ....... ; : :·•·•--··1•---!"'l--- •, . . . J ..... ., .. • •• . . a statutory requirement.;· " ·· · -: ;., . . ·-•:·:. . . 1 . . J. . .That case was .not, a relevant-authority on the facts of the t.;_.·,,.-. , .... , • •• . • • .-. • • . ... ···_pres,;;:c case .ude .p_ppel.. .,The 'btitd·en on the .. a-ppel.Iin-t in the :: ,_• ' I •,••• • . • _Oayvji cae was .. :5.tatutory and tll,e dnus-;:had aris·eh·.biy. after it : --- !··.-,. . .~ •.. •. ,;j . .{! was p,r_ovGd by9nd doub.t that. :the., d i-amonds were found on the •• • I •• •• ,. • • premises o,f .. that app)..lant. . However, in ·the p·resent · appeal the . . ~~ . . ... _ty.p:: was 119t found ... .1;:m .. the premises ·of the appe11.an·(iand evn . '!,. -'f·• .. • . ·•. '-·l ' . . . .u; r ;.,1..1,, :.. .. . . . , . . , ):f .tha.;..)1a :-l'l:·e-.PP.ened,.; _. thee .1'> no':.'S tatutory bu11den ·,on the • • • - • : :: ::.· , • f ... • app1:llant .:1:q,, pi;.ove; .. t,hat, suc11- possession was lawful. . • •. ,.. .. J - . . . •• ' .. .ut .on a cj..~~e. l,09k a:t -the offending words ln the jud.gmcp.:i.: of the -;tower court it would appear .that the :magistrate . w ..• cl:Yng,, tl'laj,:_ he,,h. _been satis·f.ted ithat -the appellant • •J - •••• - .'. ·, :J?ta.1:,ne<;l,_~~he, .-!=.yre·-in .. ties:tion nd., :that the- appeliant had not ·. •'" . •, .· . .. . . . .... . .. . . :· ·::1--n.- any w:aY•tcast any j:i.oupt;.on ,the:.credibility of P.w_l, P.W.2 an:: P.:7•3 w9 .. gav-. the. -incrJmin.3ting. evidence. It· is, . . a9i;~~~~d.;y, .i a.;msi,rctipn for the··. c·ourt'- to place any burden on_ at) .ad::l1$-=-}prso .whre- ,the' lew".places rio such burden .. ; : ··' . - , ~ . . ... . ~ .. . fo_ ,i.t is for the.,, proseeution to prove, its ·case beyond a .:~ . . , .· ' .. ~ . reas~:>nablo d'?~bt _t;\nd:· an .. acoused:J-rnay even opt to keep s·ilenc:e. !, • . . I think, in any •••••• /3 . ':1 J.

·,. ... ·•

• , ...... - 3 ... ·. ' I th.ink in. ?1n.Y case, that .the misdireetion was. not necessarily .. t:iltol i1;· ·the cas; under -apeal, if the magistrate found th . .. . . . . prosecu·i:ion case proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The cas.e •. --~ . . ., .. , depended on the :credibility of Pwi.t, ·P.Wi2 artd P."W3. ' . . . '.t'he ·c_ractor:· of P.W.l was heing kept at the Prertti.ses ot ,:.,., •.ft:,.,,:;•,, •"'>.•.;, . >,~ ..... , .. ••• • . . . . I• • .' • ., P •. W,~.· According· to· P .W.2, ·.the. ap;iellant wno· used to· l,e the • • •,,• •I: ..... •, .. 1• ,.,,, • "., o • • •: - • 0 o - • • !Tlecha;ic ·f 6.r·, the .. tractor went .. ,i:o him. (P·.w.2 ). and ·told him that .. f"tW.l h ·: .it~~ htm:·..:_ th.a a_ppll.&n't to, i:alw ~~&X ~ t · tyre· o~ th~ tra;tor· t~ g~t ft .i.'t..ed• P.W.2 and 'the ap.po1i aiit went . to where -:'the t;-ac tor· was being cleaned by P,W,$ ·.:., £ts driv.er.. Th-e- 'ir·on·t · tyt.e was then taken away in tile . . . ., . ··~ .: \·. . . esemc:e of J?W.3., Apparently f!>.W.3 was. n_t given the i-e41ot .. . . . .. . ~ ~ ... e 'WO- · bO takaf\ a-woy by hl\a· app-.ll.~t un-4d1 .4Q, ~ following day, when P .w.2 did so.. In the meantime P .w.1 : "'~~nt:ly told .. P .w.2 that it as not true ie had instruc;ted ' . ' . . the appulant to take away the tyre. It was then the awel1ant ,·.,;. . -¼)uring his defence the 8p.pellant · merely· s.aid. tliat: i:he ..• .,,, :· _ ,-1··• -... ,i: ("> . • .. , • ·. day af-ter ,e alle;gedly €6'ok away· ·the tractor P .W..2 al.lad him . ···before on(tElibartki . ow.t····ancf told him th-at he (appellt. · ..... · hd 'to{en··- a·.tyre ..nif· that -t.hey··t.,oulq aeet either .i'n 1 court 01-:· . ·:_ · .. 't·. t • ... . : t. •· • ~ ~ .• ~ ,..... • ~ '\ . • . , •. . · ·. the polu:!s.tation. "'Jj·.w.;i·a.tlet cea.i.rra.th.¢:-...t.o€v - J):.,:;:· .. :•:: ;.;:,..J-.. :.~:-1. . .. . . . · . . .... -. evidence. A third defence witness,. one Willim Ngilisho said ', -.~ -' .. ' ~ ·::Y:.--;:1ppcl.lfu>:t oe cplail'i:·to ·him that P .. o2 -ad -clled him -.. .··. ·;·. ·.· ::..,,, ~ --t!f-. of·: a \yr and "that ·p· :w.2 _admit·ted. tht indeed the ..,·\i ... : , ........ l- ··,·. -.· ·. . . ·. - .. . . .. · ..... · ... appellant had stolen. a tyr_e. U_nder .crossLexaminati_on by ··,·.'th pros,..:!cutor the wi tns: tld the cur-t that the- appellant . : . .: : . . ': . . . . . .: . •.· : . . . .. . had complained that P.W.2 .owed him shillings 14,000/=. ..... • :·.: •• .· .~. ' •', •• : ,i. ~-- • • : ·nr. Shayo·; Junior, learned counsel for the appellant has urgGcl in ground 2 of. ~h_e peti ti_on of appeal that the trial -e •• ' • agistrat:e had not at all considered the evidence of .:the In his judgment the trial district magistrate referred· to :the def'en¥ evidenc2 al though he did not specifica1ly. mention that he d-isblievG!d it • .•• • I

~ ••:. : •... • •, • • • t' . ;i .... •;' '. • • • ~ • ·; •.; :..I : .. : ··• ., ;·1 - •. ,. •• t, • ..... .• '• : :-/:. :.r . .. : _ .-, , ; : :· # t· .... •.{i"':• _; •• ::, --:.! r: - :-....:_. ,,,.. •. ~ • - I" , • • • • '; .f-1:.- ... .!.=.:•·-;•1 :·;-: -•••Yi- : ,. - : · .. :· \ . ,_• ,,.,,.. - ... -- . •.• ,.-;••:r.:'.••••• 'J,:t I~: ... 1t ; • ; ; :: :, ,.:, •. 1· ,..'. "! :;..: u:t ,h9,!., .11-.mp;L;f:d:J.y_ ct-;i:..bl.ieved ·i t.:w-b'en. he. ebserve~ tha:t the -. . . ,• , . . . . , ,,.,. .. j . ... ,. _. ", .-p,BJ?e).11tJ,$'Yc.,.io :,.rns why -h-pr-0s.ecuti..on· wi tne$-91&S who had ··· · . n qu.:ir-r.~ .wi-.th".h-im shld.i have·. °lied ·-~~~inst him. Tis· suggests . . . . . . ,::!-;l;lat~:h.m.a.gistr-.1"-te- .c«:>S.ideried .. both the _prosecutf:on ··ct :. ., .. __ .. de;lf:ti=n,c •. _.YNi.9,.enc and :-found. th•.pros·ecution.·_,version credible • • • ~ • • I : • • .: • ,·•· cornp.:i.re:d to the defence sto.ary.· In .any,Gase, the -·ubs.tantive . . .,. 4ef.enc._'f.,:..Ylas .. , 9 ,t J?W.2 .. had .illlleged .. that•'the:·appellant had stolen a . . .. .. ), ' . . ,' ... ,.. .ty.t;c ,e.,d P-tWo2. c.on,1.stently.agred,,that.he had. ellea•i::the . - .-.--<-". ppeil:aI?,t u: ief .w'ho, .. had.· .,tol,en.a · ty:t.e.=.L ·rn fact'(tt~{'.a;,pallant . , , ... rievGr_.,.;i,n h_is .-defence ,s:pcuically .. deniQd/that he, s'tol:li the tyre. • .... ' ,. • • - 'I ,' ,.... . t,! • • • . • ..-:r-=,. ..• """:M.i::- •.• Sb,ay.o .. argu.::d. ,the: th~~d ground.' of --sppeal •thett--iP.W.l and ' .. : .P:.'!W..Zr.1;1.:;;.re wi tnsses .. wi-tnlthei-r-: 0 own interests . to' se.t1e and, .. :__ ', • • ' , ; • • •,J • • • . • . _.. , .. tl).eref or.e·, thi.r-"'evi<:fende :.needed ··corrdb·orati6ri. I am !unab la to : . ... :· app:r~.c:trt.; why::those .wi-.1messes can b1:·f·.s.aid to have had their : • • . ' ,• l • • . • i • • : ' ~ • ' • • • . . . ... r"• • .. , on intores·ts, · to :s s:rv~:•; · P-.,W.,'·l· was '·the owner· of the tractor and .. t . . his only :.iratri'ii1l· .. evidence··"was · to deny· th'a·t he had instructed . ''• . th.e· ·appellnt to .take awayf•'thc· ·tyre. It ·will be t··emembered ;_i~:,tha.t·; th:(;!mppeilant -himself'. .·•aid. not sa.Y thlt P .w.1 had. in fact tr:. t·, .11ivt:n1:.hifo ·,any such inst,ructibhs:.: P w.2 was the principal :_,.p<rocution witness. -'.:::.' · · : • o1t·:.·.a_;i ·although ::.:D.w_ •. 3 said th1::; alant:·'haa:'. 1 once compnd:ned' to him th.at P.W.2 · · · · ·· · . not owul!l -him. hillings 14 ,000/ 1 the··. 'appellai1t' himself didLconsider .. th.t·{,actor,,es:'_:relevant -to •th· ·allegatfon···of theft ·ag1nst hi otherwise;; h-~ wciuld have mentioned it during his defe:nh·e or at ! •. : .

hiast cross-examine P.W.2 about it. P.W.3 in any case confiril)ed that he saw the appellant take away the tyre although, I agree, j_:t Nao. cu.riou.s · that, the· supposed reason for the appellant to tiike away the. tyre on ?/1/89 was not given to him on that samG dny. BUt that is not necessarily a reason for disbelieving PoW•3• All in all, once P.Wl,, .PWo2, P.W.3 are believed as the trial magistrate believed them, and I see no good ceason for thinking h~ erred in doing so, it was open to find the charge adcquutGly proved. ~ .. ~ ... t . =- f t· ~-- ~ ·:. : j· .·· The s.entence•••o•••/5 . ··- .... ., ..

5 Th,:, scnt-=nce of 12 mon'-:hs imp::-isonment WJ,; not xc<.;siv,.; and the compensation o;~~cr was a logio3l consquonca of the convi~~inn$ It was for th.: cb0vc reasc:1s tnt I dismissed the appeal in its At Arusna: 3/10/90

(J., A • .MrcP.101 
JUllC-S