Luka s/o Mwakanange vs Republic (PC Criminal Appeal No 10 of 1978) [1982] TZHC 129 (2 December 1982)

I • Pt i. IN THE HIGH COURT OTAII&J AT PBEY.[\ APPELLATE J13RISDIC - (Pa) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 10 OF 1978 (Original Criminal Case No.5 of 1978 of the District Court of Kyela District at Kyela and Kyela Urban ?rimary Court Criminal Case No. 1 of 1978 Before: P.B.Mponzi, District Magistrate) LUK.A s/o MW.AKANANGE s : APPELLANT (original Accused) • versus THE REPUBLIC q :RESP0NDENT.. (Orignal Posecutoz) J U D G M E N T. MR0SO I J. This is a second appeal. The appellant Luka Mwakanange Was prosecuted in the Kyela Urban Primary Court for malicious damage to property, He wasfound. guilty and convicted, Ie was sentenced ; tv a' fine of shs, 500/=. or six months imprisonment in default.; He was also ordered to pay to the complainant compensatior .o. shillings lOO/=.'He.appealed unsuccessfully to the ;.. District Court of Kyela and subsequently to this: court.... There had been a dispute between the appellant &,. • complainant over a piece of: land. The dispute was., ad.jdicated on by the District Land. Tribunal which found. the complainant the rightful owner of the disputed. land, It also marked the boundary between the.appellant and the complainant,who are neighbours. The appellant did not appeal to the relevant authority against the d.ecision • of the Tribunal. Later the appellant cut down a tree which stood on the piece of land which had been adjudged the property of the complainant,. When confronted by the complainant he admitted he . was the one who cut it down — but claimed ../2:

-2 - it was his tree. The oornpplainant took him to court. In his defence before the trial court the appellant denied that there had been an adjudication over the land on which the tree stood. But that denial had been proved false by complainants witnesses.. It was clear that the appellant had deliberately flouted the decision of the Land Tribunal in cutting down the tree. The decision of the Tribunal which was produced in evidence during.the trial and which I have had the benefit of perusing shows that the tree in dispute was on that piece of land which was found to belong to the complainant. If the appellant was dissatisfied with the decision of the Tribunal the right course frhim to talce was to appeal against it and merely to igno'e it as he notdemonstratecI by cutting down the tree. I find that he was rightly convicted, sentenced and ordered to iiay the compensation to the complainant. I dismiss the appeal as devoid of merit. J.A. ivmoso MBEYA JUDGE 2nd December, 1982 Mr. Kapinga, State Attorney, present. JAN/ATM lima.