Republic vs William s/o Jiyimbi (High Court Criminal Appeal No. 7 of 1982) [1982] TZHC 390 (1 December 1982)

. ·1.•· IN TEE HIGH CCURT C.'F' TANZANIA A'PPELL[,.TE }lJRISDICTION HIGH COURT CRH<tNI,L f}';,-:'LJ:.L N·C o . 7. of 1982 . ., _-;,... . ; oRIGINJ:L cE::::v-' nu.L c"sr; No ... 15 · oF: 1901 • ; ;:~ .l ; .... ; . OF THE DIS ;··.RIOT COUPT. ('f EtS~:;;, .. DIS':}iICT' !' T MS$':,\ . I·' BEFCRE 1'· ,.GEBE, ESr o, DISTRICT i· [.GISTL 1:rE ir!ILLIIJ··~ s/o JIYD I o o o • o o • a a o o o o ~ o o ~ g u a o v ·.e r s u ~ Tf.:'E R£Pl.J.:3LIC RESCNDENT .;·:)·:.:: CEf.EGE:·, .S:tealing 'c/B 265 of the f'enal, Coe, ,CaP• 16 Vol.l •. l. } .ot· the La-w"s. · .. ( 'J' U .D. G L' E; 1:f T : f ! i j ' , , ' •j ; .: .. ·' . "!, .,,. ., I Wil.L:ttJ' S/0 r"I.YI; '31 a'1i.d ·t·vro.,.otners were Jointly . . :., j .: . chargerl with'stalL~~;T ■ Si:6b1G/. from t~~•huse,of ... · .. f : : . . . · . · : : I J .r, r. , • : : · •Luj.ini Sayi ~ · · The: -.:lJ,plL:,nt :ind' ·EJe,m.:::ri,ueJ I tiko ··were .f·ound .. . . ·• ,, . I. , guilt:Y, and ... 'corivicted ,of the offence,a~,ch,rged a:11.d sentenced t O; thr,e f'!. year's ·imp·ri son!"1ent . ';; .. Th ?cas-e'f_qr ,the·:,}~~Sijcutimi. it,, r,;iJ.ort:/,···rt ·wc.'s 1: ; .·. . . :·.: . . . : J' ~ .- . .· ' . . .. · . . · · · allE; ge_9:J Ht/;1t .. the,! asu ,ed .. had gor1P,. : t.9 s,e~~c h the house of , . - ,; ', • , ' • i • r I. . I • j:pt 9ompl_01inant J.:9:r, !;5am trophies-,Wtf:,1,, tney saw 'filC :rioney i1rl an ir,o,n nox •. , They brole' the box, ,.-.,ncl f oun.d' the money. ' . . i,.; : ( . ,.' ,..£ . 1 : : T:tiey. tool .t11is mor_i,ey~ ·, . ; :·, i . . .. ,· •. All h acce~ de~i·the.aileatlciris ~~Hinst hem Th 't'f'ial .c;ourt nccept·ed 'th0 prosecution case and convict-d-,t• Crt a;:)pel, the Iearn~q S_i;,nte A.ttorney, i":r. ;. i . Cp.a_ila did not support the c'6nvic:t,,:i.on questicni:nt, the i:. , I,... .,.. -!-:~ __ ;·~ -·A::--,--i: credi.bilit:y' of .th() wi:fo·· o,f tr,P. c,o,r.,pL,inon'- p.'{,J.~) ·w1.10 was the ri-1.y w·i;tnes_s;who ·:l·id 'sc,en«iwr casr/:h·ox- broken., Chai'la ··sub .. mi.tt;.,·:·.·tl;;;,t:11J:' ,p.t;.;:: l;,,d s.e,n this ·theft, . :-.1 she would have reported th incient at t~~ fitgt av;-~ilable opportunity:- This 'would hc-vo 1:i·ci'en the t'ime lollowinr her nr.rest ".i·hen' she: ;,,,;S tc-.:en tc the cc:t,'.' office and accued·ot- uvtng en ·16tin with a leopard skin. . ., !:,~e did not at th'is tjpe '·s.y a'ri.ythi.n: .. nbout the theft e It ,was. o"nly f\·f',t,e.r her retnrn· :frorr, the CCh office following !'.?er releas· th:.,,t ;iu lat.er ·weat' :toa~~fl-'&d • ·the appellant ,"_ccoroing Chaila·, no thc1 t had tc:lk:ri plac_e ~nct .. tbat· -ho accusaion C

,. 'i.l': 2 ~ had been made onl~ as a retaliation agnnst t'.1<::1 a;ipella-nt,_ '♦ and hi-; colloag,ues :tor ;having searc:,ec 1 ;1er iiouse. I see ,. force in the )3:q;;,__,Lent .of J:r. Chc,iL:i. I accupt that had t',e appellant and his collc::f1--:e.s stolf:n 'J'.,S1,s.687'C/ f'rom the cor.;plDinant, noti.cen ·t . · d< +- 1· 1 J__r,;r;",J .1.a.., e y. ' Th8 court is not told lThatever was used to break the -i::)OX, the··tnanhBr,,mp:5t 1:iav.0,_ dr3wn the attention of the corplninHnt to tho box and its contents f\nd yut p.w.2 st;;·t(:Jd' l:ha-t---she dj_d uot notice the theft unti~ after ber return from the CC~ office. ;.1ow possible - .con'siderint; too th:.it T.Shs.6870/="-i.s QJ a small am.oun _and the f'nc,t _that thfl rroney· is allo.;od to have bee-n. stolen durinf! ·cta:y light. o f P .. 1:; • 2 C on C O C t e d and 1' r I'?- j e C ;t it • . :·· :.• .. : __ . '. ·. th,~ np;)ellaut.. a,r1c~ t:is collea[ue, · it evidence· ,against follows tl:c\i: the r6iecution led n? ui}lcirit,e ·icnc~ r-: . to justify upholding tht'i conv,;i..ct,ic,ns. ·1 cllo,;,- the ,,ppeal a:ga.inst t,he appellant. ·· I qua;sh tl1c. co'n;itibri arid se:t. aside the sentence • . once unless he is lawfullv held on anotLe1~ ,, o:)ttor .. -''.· • oJ ; I, . ' Emt:1anuel l'ti'ko, further <J:Ll.e.,sti t:~~ orivict ion. ,afpir+st the 2nc,"a_c,ct:\sed du'rinc ;tho ,t,ri.al or ti1~~ snt•:e ree:sons outlineda\Jove. 'l'scd:''.a:,;;ine ;;is. S<-;ntenc and' order that :,e be .se:t -free at 6i1c,,• unless he is lcrntully~ tH?ld on 'aootber matt.er. I would in cn6lusion, for the bnefi~ 6f the trial 1vat[.';istr-atn, l!llti-t~ tliat. thf.; learned trial magis--:;rate misr(iad th~, evidence :'.l~)i'or0 Jlin:. In tb.u f'ifth :paragraph o:f the judgment the' lenrn-1.:>d tr,ial n,c,s,:i strc1te, sta.t..;1c: This . . . it'. III' ,- .., L. · · 1 1 J · ' t 1 · t·· t t·· t . , , ;,.-·. ,d • .:, enJ c., o · ,1.r;;oe o 0 ,:-, o c our - ;:.e: · ••.oooeoo~, s:tlj] 8UW accused~~ flll(~ 3 and 011e who ts n6t in cout distri½uto (the ogy) hi . to tL(-)rr,sclv0.s. l' '::1'.-"'i· t•~ statement is ot supported v ': . the record. J.. }:1[J. VG carefully searched t. h,e -rncorc ,,nr' -i'-1)0>"0 l·. <, n(l S'1C.-· 11,,. - . _ ~al • \ I , .• •-. "-• ~t • ...,,: f ... testi1::cn,- Indeed, :ff tt,or,; hod existed suer: an assertion,

3 • -his should have gone to discredit F ■ ½- for not immediately reporting the thft to the authorities as I bave pointed Ths iareading of the evidence led the triil. court in part to coe to wrong findinssi Tis. error would by itself been (DOUfh to hav0 vitiated the .. conviction I say nothing on the meticulous care needed by tninl P,€.gist·rates iD b,-; ndling cases. Jl1CGE lst December, 198.2. Coram.: T /~.3CE1\ Ruba111a, J. Appellant Judgement State ~ttorney fur the Republic. delive:r-ed. 1st December, 1982.