Mwita Mania vs United Republic (High Court Criminal Appeal No. 88 of 1990) [1990] TZHC 73 (17 September 1990)

APPELLNIE J(JlUSDICTION llIGH eoonT cnnrurnL APP.EAL lfO. 86 Of fl'() OIUGIUAL CRIMIIIAI, C! HO~ ??? ~ 198' OF 'i1TIB l);l:91!' 9®.T ElF lL/,U .. MSTRleT AT IQ:~ Bcf oro F .A. Chilloji, Esq,, noaid.c,i,J; 1't8lsitr!irre .. JJTI'PA iwnA , • • • o o • • • • • •., • •, • • • • • •. • • • • • • •, n • f o ~ ~ ~ • • • • ~ • ,Af'PJl,if . . . ( 4cr,it 4etgJ,!il) . - ~ UNl~ IlEFUDLIC • • • • • • • • • • • ; • • • • • • • • • • • • • • , • • • , • • •· • ! ~ • Riilflt-W!1' . · ( Qri~ ffiOU.,riJ) JμDg}@ Tho o.ppollcnt, MITITA WJ;l' .. , wcs Qonvic1;qd pf re W prson or;u1>:t,Q;ycd in public Service Co'tr&-y to ctol,fl tT1 ~ ,; •t ~~~ PosrJ, Je9,e azid, ,ras son·onood to three ;j'9S ioprisonocnt, ,Ito i~ ncM f l?Q~~ fi-or.t tho conviction. :C ao μne.l,?le · to /be. t.vo !iln.ll~~ ''tlJ?.' -~ .... """•' JPJ)ell.t ha.s oomplotoi, served Ais imp:ris~~ent toro. e toots of the e;:,so as estl>l.;$cd by ~~ i !GW M"·~ ff ' . ..... clear, brief on,d ·-yndipte;d sV'9 fer; the el'e!\QC o J?s 4' ;f!, ~~ I • . tte. It nae csto.blis.l?-d in eclGRe tl.4;.i; ~~ 11lc ::relovan1 m!j ~ a.;r>pcllant w a.ri o\ilpl,QfQQ et i®ek •. "- Paoks ~ l>~ f W , 11 I DP¥ l:>e ooro prooiso g. MClll'at9, ·'tlie 2,ppol1t WM p;¥1?_a ~ - t>f•1 lMlQ\ymio. · It is in Qvi4enc9 that ,,m, tilio 1? f.'IW~, JN -.~ .).$ ~~ ;If' duty 4 cs. Q; n..1.tter of fAPt repoL?9d t'.. DO\iQ V{'M<:: ~~~· .. sr 1,,. ,~ la :f\gthop 4,~ cviclenco · tha;t Ptl tho '\tcipJ c¾.? ¼ PPfl.le,1~ ~ti lei l'l-- ot work ct 5 ◄ 30 p.n •. 'lllA appelhint on depl'..l'turQ {'89\l. 9!Ja-li , At ~ ll.f 13p.;-0J.iod @cl nothino WM f 9WJ&l w;i,.4 ! f'JJ. th. f.ol,lQltil\g w ii ~~ . ·- . ' . -- · ... oo4 t the (a of to ~~4,q. vc1tj,.ple lfAA sillG• lt was ,, ~ l>ljsb.o(\ ~ OClOl\QQ tht 1;hc ot4wi ii mr Q.w;tij . <?~~~4 -., pt the yp;'d whore tlie vehicle wn.a -~~k.cd l)y outtin P;P9tl tb.~ 1:l'H~ tlf J~ F'~ i'- when the a11pgllMt Md two otb.01 ,;Toxc &'l'Osted. -i 1ii-11' ib,gI, ·"- tl).9 ih9f1; ot '{;llO sci.4 a:iclo. :.t:t is tic;n,U$.Qt to.Jl_oto t~ -tl?,04£r~ t}.f rp§~ AA~ h,is 9o;t.l,9 1rore !3C.or.<"Jh!?4 o-'i;l:Jμic- :i.¥:rim.3,,nt~ was f4 ~ tfl¾ There 1s no d()ubt th.is ~loins why t:1.0 le.-.:-ec1 .$t•c, /+ttoxlnc,1-, JU.ff f"!' di4 n,t pport the ccm.victtm, °' .., . ~, ' fi.u,, .. ·• ,.ft

r>f!",_· .. : .-.-, .•. , - ' ! • • • ' , --~ '""•:,-- _.μ, .. ·· ·,,-,~ For dctcrDinill{.; this c.ppca.l I took pains to r;~. throuch Jliho entire procoodinc;s of the lower court cl'tcr h0villG not been l'lrsu.o.c.lod th..:".t there wo.s ~thine in the judGiJcnt of the trial n11ur:istrato to Wc.t'l'a.nt a. conviction. In :tus juc\z'i.lont tho loomed. :brial tl(:'..Jisn.to diroctcc! hinsolf, or rc1.thpr, . . . . :· ~ ·.' .. misdirootod biosolf that ho appoll• .. 11t'"..d or-could have tho opportunity.to stool tho sr.icl c.xle. As there WM no other catoricl. ovi<.1onoo o,eainst tho a)pollant it WC,fJ BTOSBlJ' wron,g for tho trinl ongistrc.to to arowid Q 0onvi0tion on twro Qr,>110:rt-,, uni V• Lot 1 t be lmown to tho t:r::t.rl r,,e,.Jiavo..t0, fo'l: hta otm. aool1 to, o t\ltUZ'• thC'.t in law opportWlity w it,s,a1f OM not bo cmoU{;h 'bo tmand '/1 oonotion. I 0.tl tll'lP1Y sQ.t;l.sfied, upon roc-na ihe :roool'C., the,i thoro 1·rr.a : a\iffioiont oviio1100 to oonviot 'iha r.p1:i011Mt ot the:tt. in the oiroumett\Mau, infa.o'b tho ovidonog DAdllO<Jll f Pl.1 fc,w fiUQf'II 'ot the 1'bMlW.'ti ro.o4. t.t X QO¥ d, it uow..d A-110 AP.PO tlmt th (.)Me WM no, M1t · iuvoaiiaAtgd r.a it ·oht to hw boon. Fo:r thc1;10 .o,;,.so1u1, l Pll.ew 1ib..G PtJ:>pQcJ., ~ tllg oonoti@n, QfJ't M4.M thQ eon11enoe r.nd tho oottpanQA'biri 02;1~.(m• Ao tho P,Pl.;l@2.1m'li hAt cAC\Y Hl'V'cdi hia aon11onoo, % r;mlro no t®thf @l'l\Wfh DoUMe4 in oo@t At Dt.W @s Wc.c.m 'bMn 17;1i 4q ot tJor,1era\1'1» 1990• AoO\MC:m ~ ?,1Q$gn'(i in t,l}i'6M .3.3, I•Uttl.\WA NJ, W.OOffl . MS.faltJ fMM ':' atr,.1lt1 t'\ttQmey · fgr tha Mgpt;1lli0t , . t-i+-- , -t ; ~'}/ f,;~~.l (•:,;•.(./;. J .,3, Mfe·1Alflv•#<-· .AO, JtmOE 1'1/'J/90