20141205 TZHC Iringa2

I IN THE .HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA .. AT IRIN A,. . . . . _· I . APPELLATE JUR]SDICTION , . . .(Iringa RegJstry) · (DC) CRIMINAL APPEJNO. 35 OF 20~3 (Originating from Criminal tase No. 155 of 1999 · . of the District Cou~t of Iringa Distridt . · at Innga) ! ACQUINO S/0 MBUNGl ...... APPELLANT . . . VERS+ i THE REPUBLIC ................. RESPONDENT I ·I 22/10/2014 & 5/12/2014

JUDGEM NT MADAM SHANGALI, J. In the District Court of lringa, the appellant (the· 8 th accused person before trial coLrt) together ~th other 8 ·accused persons were charged with the offence of armed . . , I robbery contrary to Sections 285 and 286 of tne Penal Code Cap. 16 R.E.

2002. He was foundl~ilty arid ~mvicted together I .' • with other 3 accused persons. b!ing the 1st , 6t)1 and· 7th, and ._ · ~~ were each sentenced to ··3:o·•tyears imprisorhrrefit with· c6tporal 1 .r ., ' ,,,. ~ ~ •• ·.;/_,.·•. :_~_::_~~ .... ~· • ;-, f ... ·, • • ,•:/, -~ ,"'."'_;c ', 'M -punishtrie11t·,.of '·. . ,: . twelve . . ' .--.strdk:es:· ..'The" . . ., first. accused ''Who had ~ '.. . , : \ ' . '.. jumped,· hai~. during trial ~as -'Convicted and sentenced • •. 0 '0 .. L ; 1Il absentia.: . _; , Later on, the 6 th and 7 th accused _persons filed an appeal to this court namely DC Criminal Appe~ No.· 17 of 2005. They were successful and on 8 th February; 2006 their appeal was allowed and set free. The appell~t who was equally aggrieved with the decision of the trial District Court was late to file his . appeal but later managed to fight back hence this appeal to challenge that decisi_on of the trial District Court against him. It was alleged that on 27 th February, 1999, at about 00:30 ·: hours at Ukumbi village within the District and Region of Iringa, the appellant together with other 8 accused persons (co..:accuseds) did steal properties of total. value of Tshs. 750,000 / = the properties of one J ostan Mwakonya and before such stealing, they used actual violence against on~ Mekodi . Kalolo, (PW5) to wit, they threatened to shoot him by using a gun in order to obtain

the said items. The prosecution side summoned seven witnesses and in· summary the evidence during trial was as follows; Jostan Mwakonya (PWl) the owner of the shop that was invaded, tes~ified that on the 27 th February, 1999 at about 00:~0 hours . while asleep at his home at Ukumbi village, he was awakened 2 ·_; . t·:~ :,>~. .1. .~::.·". 4 h~.-,.~- .:... i?'-:• °':"~•-...-~•--~- ,i; .~-: .f•~_..r...<~;-~"·:· ;,.; -~~,·. ·;.. .-.:~-:tJ-~4~.-. ~-'"!~~~:1 :;,,,-~l,,~--~~~t°·";-..A:.. ,__• .,:,. ·'.; ~.. <;_ ·;1 > ·_ ,.): '· i •,• • • • • ••. . -f . ': .·. : .·. ••.' _· ;.,~~-> '< . ~ --.,! by Jackson. Nzi~ra 8.i~d: I~~kodi Kalolo (P\~TS:).'.:._ .·He ..wa~ .. , •. . ~ . .{ informed· about ·the alleged invasi6rt to his shop. :He :decided 'to .· •. -. . <: • ,. .. . l I . I visit the scene and confirmed tne incident. Mekodi Kalolo . .. .. j . . ; . . • (PWS) who was the employee of PW 1 told him that he managed - l . to identify two· of the accused per$ons the ·1 st and 8 th accused . . . I I persons. Rooert Mdota (PW3) te·sti.fied that, ·on 27 th February, -. I 1999 while he was at Mgama village at about '11 :00 hours, managed to apprehend the 1st acc}ised who named Titus Ngasi . ( 7th accused) and ·Acquino Mbudgu, the appellant to be the . people who sent him to collect· • J bicycle to be _used to ferry I t 1 . goods from that village (Mgama).1 Gaspari Lusasi (PW4), the . Villag~

_Chairperso~ of Mgama, tektified that on . J .27 February, th · ~- _1999 managed to apprehend the young man who mentioned . . Titus Ngasi (7th accused), Acquint Mbungu, th·e appellant and ! ' ,., . Godfrey Segesela as the people who sent hi:¢ to collect a I . . . -: ·,._bicycle that could ferry goods. When the said y0ung man tried · - - - I . · to run away he was then apprehended and sent to Tanangozi. The said young man was never s1een after that ..· Mekodi Kalolo (PWS) testified to have identifJd the three bandits on the i I fateful date (26th February, 1999) at about 00:00 hours when invaded. The identification was// aided ·by the light which he had put on after he was forced to do so by the bandits. He managed to identify the 1st , 7th /and 8 th accused persons. The 1st and 8 th accuseds were fam~liar to him be~ause they had been visiting him at the. shoJ severally. C. · 864 7 detective . Stat1on s·ergeant . N1colus, . ( lw6) who w~s- as..signed,~ to 1 ,, investigate the case testified thr·a1; the· time he- Was 'assigrie:; ' ··- , , . " ., ; , ., . -. . • , ·- .. - . . ~-it: ~ ~ .. r~:; sM'":} bi:i:-,;~•;-'i.~r: ,.;i:1•fifrtti i¾t:~>~Ni,~t·(:·. :·:; ·:1 •.; , · · ,.,, ,o:,-·!,'t;,;, ,,,:;.,.,,:,.:,~t6'; >,'.' .. . '. . ..~c'.- .• • ·-- ~ . ... "•. • • r , ~•~ ii, ',, { r., ~ .; . ·. \-](/_'...:,··: ... ·:,- ;· , ' .. !,~' . ' ' _.: ~/.. ':1: •. ,.., ' • ' I • :\ ! .\ _¾-, ◄

• o 1'f. • ' j • • /• • ,'\, • '••.• • ' • •• • .:.... •'. r •.I .. :·. · the case ~he' 1st accused\~i;?,s/already ·arrested.',' In interrogation .' • • • • ."h i•'• •,. . . • the-1 st accused mentioned :ni;e_Bth, 7 th and 6 th accused persons j" • r as his accomplices.·.on· 28t~. February, 1999_ the .1 st accused lead them to the house· of the 8 th accused. ·Though they did not find· the 8 th accused but they had managed to find the stone commonly .known as "Fatuma" that was used in the incident, to break the shop. ·The 1st ac~used said that the said "Fatuma". belonged - to ·the: ·4 th accuse~. The 5 th and 8 th accuseds were arrested on 7 th April, · 1999 as a result of information he had received. He tendered the caution statements of-1 st , 4 th , 7 th , 8 th and 9 th accused persons. During the trial, each accused person made his individual defence in which, they did not incriminate others .and they denied the charge. On the defence of the 8 th _accused now· the appellant (DW7) was to the effect that, on 23 rd February, 1999 .. while at Ukumbi village where he lives, he got information to the effect that his father was sic~ at Bomalang'ombe. On the 1 24 th February, 1999 he went to Bomalang'ombe to attend his sick father. It was later revealed to him that his sick father had been _sent to Usokami mission hospital. On 25 th February · 1999 he did travel to U sokami where he

remained there until 30 th March, 1999 when his father passed away. They went to hurry him at Bomalang'ombe on the 02 nd April, 1999. On the 05 th April, 1999 he was required by his uncle to go and relay . the information of death to the 5 th accused who resides at. 4 ,, .::-... ..... - ·,:... ·~·. . ·.Jr:; ;i;:~~7;7t~,t~0~f:1~•i±¥~j~rz::~7~_:_rii(_:;j~'.~:':~'t~~::;u;~~~;;f1;~;~'{:,::1-r ' . : ;:... ·~ '. ~:: .. '' ' ' . 1 , \·, , .... ~ •. t •.~:,.• ~', ~~-"\• •• . ,fl,·.' . • •1·~, ~ _,•.,, "-;, .,",,-~•, ·I\llgela·village·: H6 we~t<to' . 5 th accuse~l's I .,.nlace a.nd on. 07 th ltt:iril ,. .. · ... ' . was arrested ·~rhile· at. -Stlj accused's: place. \Mhile ,.at the police· I • station he denied his involvement iin the alleged ,incident and in court he refuted the caution st~tement that was alleged to ' have been given by him to the poli¢e. As I have pointed above the tr1al Magistrate was convinced . with that evidence and ·.convicted the appellant along with two • I others who were later released. In this appeal the appellant appeared iii person and . unrepresented while ·. Ms. Blandi1!a Manyanda, _· learned State Attorney appeared for . the respondent, the Republic. The . r . , a.ppellant filed . 6 ~-grounds - in his appeal, but they ali intends to . . mean that the offence against him l was not proved . beyond· . . reasonable doubts and in acG~rdance with ·.· the

standard required of proving criminal casbs. In short .o:h the first and . I second grounds the .appellant complain that the identification 1 . ., I evidence was not proper and suJficient. On. third g~ound he I complains that the caution statements which were used to ' base his conviction .were improperly admitted: in court. . On I ground four he claimec;l that tpe prosecution evidence was contradictory while _ on ground five he avers that the defence case was not give11 proper weight or consideration and on I ground six, the prosecution failed to prove the case to the 1 required standard. . 5 I ' ' . . : On 22 nd October;. 2014 vvhen the insta.i.-it appeal came for hearing before. this '·Court part_ies had these tc:>'.argue. Starting · with the appellant; he contended that the fact that. the incident took place ,q.uring night thus the,, conditions for favourable identification were not conducive. The fact that PW. 5 was ordere~ to switch. on the light mean that the room was dark. However there is no evidence to establish the size of the house or room in which the 1ncident took place, the type of· the alleged light and its intensity or any other description of the alleged light. ,... He further· contended that it was wrong for the trial court to rely on the caution statement of the 1st accused (Kaizari Mbungu) in convicting him because he was no~_ given a chance to

cross-examine the first accused who had jumped baiL He· further argued · that the triaj court was equally wrong for basing 'his conviction on the caution statement of 6 th and 7 th accused persons because their caution statements were - wrongly admitted in court and that both were later acquitted by this court on the ground that the prosecution case was not proved to the required standard. On· the issue of contradictions of prosecution witnesses the appellant stated that some witnesses clajmed that the alleged incident occurred on 26 th and others on 27 th February ,: , 1999, while there was disparity on the_ time of his arrest:' He ·! ., ~ ~ ',_T .,,-• I '1 • ;"f' #J;,,· ~ ~ • ·.,-· • . .,.- ·~:t.· r. ·i , ' .6 ..· :. >)/: •v: ·'f. :•~~.:. ::,:'. ,. w::•. I ·: ··.:,:, .. ·• ,.;' : :.,~·. -:,::,_,,:'·._........ ~· ·~t;.i:, '" \'·.:1.·-·, . ,. ·.:. . . .. ; : .. :! :- ,• :: ,· ' ' ' . . '. . t:· . . . .- . . . ;l ' 11 ', . li; contended ttiafthe 'oiosecu.tion·.:Jritnesses ~~erei not' sure, df ••. • .Ii. I " .,. • . . ,. j ,--• I • :(,',-· -~:t·. ii:\~\ _tb~ir testimonies and as a:result:the ·prosecutio'n 1c;as~ .\1\7.a~ not, ,_ ·>. ·.·-:.:: .... ::~ ,,·' proved to the standard required. ·" , I Ms. Blandina Manyanda, ih support ofI the · appeal 1 - highlighted the shortcomings· thafwill not leave the decision of •·': . ; I the trial Court against the appellant to stand. On.the

issue of light .the learned State Attorney submitted th.at/ there was n<;> . I i• , I, evidence to show that. PWS afterb.eing ordered to,1 switch on the light had managed to identify the appellant. ;he type and • r I intensity of the light was not ip.entified or clear. This cast • ; I doubts on the identification of the appellant, ,submitted the I ; learned State Attorney. - ' On the issue of caution statements the' learned State I· Attorney submitted to the effect • that they:I were wrongly admitted in Court as they wJre objected by the accused I persons and an inquiry ought' to have been conducted to : ,j I • establish its voluntarity. Ms. Mr,yanda argueq. that admitting them without conducting an inquiry is legally wrong. IJ I • The learned State Attorney· also supported the c~mplaint by the • i ' appellant that the appellant defence was not properly I I considered by the trial court. Submitting on the duty of the 1 ' I ' trial court to consider both ev~dence of the prosecution and • I defence evidence before making a verdict, t11,e learned State I Attorney referred this; court to the~·~case· of IVIagabe Vs. The i '. 7 . . ::.~~/~'-,_->,::~. ~;;;.:·(::..[:·•~\~' ;~.c'!";,;;,r:-".-..;-}~,-:-/ :• i\?: if·;,:-, ~ •~,-';?_•;,tr-,_:":"'. -(!r ...,:\;~ .' ~~~: ~'\.,. ,:o: .. •( • . ' ' '·',1·•'1 J I •, ,. ,: ... - \ ,· l Rep:. '(2010} TLR 78 •,;..rhere it viras held 'that it is

iatal' to ignore· . ' one side of the case and base convictiort on only one side . . At this juncture it · is clear · from the record of the proceedings of the trial court and submission made by the · learned State Attorney that ther·e was a misdirection and non direction on the part of the trial court to the extent that it misapprehended the substance, nature and quality of the evidence placed before it. That gives this court a mandate to interfere with its decision as stated •in the cases of Peter Vs. - Sunday Post Ltd. (19858) EA 424 and Dee.ney Daati and 2 ·otµers Vs. The '1Republic Criminal Appeal No. 80 of 1994 Arusha Registry (unreported). In convicting the appellant at page· 13 of the typed judgement the trial court found that "the accused is further mentioned in the caution statement of the other accused· as the one who l~d them !o the scene of the incident.'' In my view, it . was unsafe to convict the appellant basing on . the uncorroborated evidence of the co-accused. The evidence of a co-accused is on the same footing as that of an. accomplice, that is, it is admissible but must be treated with caution and, as a matter of prudence, would require corroboration. At the same time the evidence which requires corroboration could not itself corroborate accomplice evidence. See the cases of Ally Msutu Vs. R. ( 1980) TLR 1 and Bushiri Amiri Vs. Republ~c ... -- 8 .; t.-· -.

(199:2} 'TLR 65. and also Section:· 3~:·:(1').'.and (2) .• of,;~he ·E,r.fd,ence: . .: .,-:.,·_._ :- {- ·, L .- • ' ' • ·_ • . : ' ;. • ' • • • ~-. • ; ·- • • • J . ' ~. • • ·.:. Act,- :Cap·: 6, R.E.·:2002. · · · ,. "· · ·,': : J' j. .. '.\;- i•. :· ' 1•:" ·', :· ·, l I This Court, however, in DC Criminal .Appeal No. 17 of • ~ ' ~I - ) •• ,~QO~i (Supra} had decided that thf caution stat~me~ts vvhich ' .·_ implicated the -accused persons and which were obJected· by tl;ie . a,ccused person were both rejected· and expunged from the ' . . ·record because no inquiry_· was I conducted to; establish its .·. . ' .·. voluntariness before admitting them. This court,observed . that . to be a fatal irregularity. That isiexactly what Ms. Manyanda . • 1 / •· stated of which I agree.· The s~e was. ajso · echoed in the ,I '·cases of Selemani Abdallah and 2 . others '.Vs. Republic ,· I . ·. Criminal Appeal No.· 384 of 2098 Dar Es Salaam Registry • ,1 • , . I (unreported}~ N. V. Lakhani Vs. R. (1962) E.A.· 644. Thus in I -essence the -~ppellant complaint in this matter has merit. Under the circumstances th~ remaining evidence is, as to l whether the appellant was correctly identified during the . I , alleged incident. It is common and ruled out in a number of I I occasions that, there is always the need for testing with !1 greatest care the evidence of a single witness in respect

of identification because the evidence. l of visual id~ntific~tion is of the weakest kind and most unreliable. , ' It follows therefore, that i . no Court should act on evidence of 'i visual identification unless I all possibilities of mistaken id~ntity are eliminated and the Covrt is fully satisfie9- that the :'evidence before it is absolutely I o " I water tight. See the case of I~sa. :Ngwali. Vs; The Republic, 9 t 1- ~~ • ', . "' .. (', ~.~ 't, . .~ I ," ~. T, ' • ;>•.; • ·, • • . 1::: ~ • .. ' _! ... "' .. Cdmilnat Appeafl No:? 215'.:_ 'o,f: 2005,:; .Coiurf, d1f Appeal of. ;Tanzania at Mtwara, {uhreporled) ·:and.·-waziri Aman_-i Vs. _-The· Republic (1980) TLR .250. : . --(· The circumstances· of the identification of .the appellant w~re not ,_favourable· taking .into. account_ the alleged incident took place during night at 00;00 hrs and PWS was .in a state of , horror who was awaken by the bandits. PWS- did not state in ·_his testimony . ~e- source of light used in identifying the appellant, -its· intensity, the size of. the room, the distance between him and the appellant. I am of the considered opinion . .. that where a witness is testifying .about . _identifying another ,. person in unfavourable circumstances, like during the night, he_ must give clear evidence. which ..1eaves no . doubt that the identification-i~ correct ·and reliable. To do so, he will need to mention

all the aids to urimistaken identification like proximity to the person being identified, the source of light and its intensity, the le_ngth of time the person being identified was within view and also whether the- person is familiar or a stranger. The emphasis on the need to consider with great caution -evidence of visual identification has been repeated by Courts in a number of occasions. See also the case of Joakim Anthony Massawe Vs the Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 227 of.2005 Court of Appeal at Arusha, (Unreported). Thus ·as rightly submitted by Ms. Blandina Mayanda such. t _,. ' • ,. ' , ~ ~ 'ii.·~ . . ' · weakest kind :0f evidence regarding identification shade doubts 10 -,).:--~··[!;~ ; · . ·• .:~~;: :I: .·:>;:2:};i:;:::t:>:\':.2:1 -:- . i: . . · ..,_. ... ~ " ·,• • ·1 . ~ • • ... :~. ·'. . : 4 . . . .. . . . . .'. •:. . . I.. . , .. ,on ..Ll-ie. . p. rosecutio·fr 6as~--and...the .. 1J'eitefit I. of do{ibt.-is .alwavs.in -· ' '.i :·· :. .-.:< ,;, -~ :::::. i,~ J . • I • I . favour•·of .the;~acc~sed• person,:{thc{·,appellaht)·. In that-regard· ' I the complaints of the appellant on!the issue -of id ~ntificatiori is 1 also meritorious. - ), .. ' I · • 1 ,' • • • ,1 l .I .. j I .. •· On whether the trial court h~d considered tp.e appellant's defence, it is in a way· the appellaht tried to rais~ a_ defence of - . . . .• t . I alibi. It is worthy· noting that · in the case

of Kisembo V .. . . . . I Uganda (1999) 1 EA it'was held tpat:- ·j i "The Court of Appeal had the duty to I properly i sc111tinize · and:- evaluate thk evidence of'! both the ) i · prosecution and the defence. It wou~d be a misdirection to accept one vJrsion and then: hold that because of that acceptance Jer se the other i version is I I unsustainable." 1 i I j A proper construction of i S. 194 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act Cap· 20 R.E. 2062 was given ,;in the ca~e of l I Charles Samson v Republic 1990 TLR 39 (CA), as it was ' I cited in the case of Ahas Matatala Versus the Republic, I I . . I Criminal Appeal No. 331 of 200~, Court of Aptjeal of Tanzania . i at Iringa (unreported), that, j "On a proper const111ctionj of the provisi0ns of this section, that the . court is I not exempt·. from .. the . requirement to t0,ke:'-,intcF qccount:·th€t:&eJ,er-i.ce' -of 'an - I 11 . :._ ~ .... -;. - . ~*-◄. '• • • ~ -.· -, _... •·...•: J, '· ·_. -~ ~--.. ~•• ,• " ,••• - • · .... ,. ~-~:',.. •--~ ,._• ,. •'l.,._ ~H- ~=-~• ,. •_ ,:•<•'•.":.: .• -- .. --~· fa• •• .. _ee. ~. , . .... • :, J.:. ·. ·t.'( ',\,; ·_ ::z· .,!,'·:: • ...,,,. :s,~:·-: ·: ~•. ,:\t ~:.ri~~-}~:.~:. :r~ld;~J:~~i:'};,:~i:{;;.\,~j ~;fi:'.{~t'i~z~-.-:-,t::1::ti~~ ;·. /~~~-;.f~~~~~-" ~~:; ~~~~' •. ·, '~ • i •• •. - ' 1·: ., ; ... : ~--~ . .,. .., 1 ~ ~· -~.. • '.. _. ~:-\i~{Yi'\' ,,, :;' .~ttif<e<~tr}tl; '.,: . . ; , ,•'

. ·,·~,:(,:·.' ' ... '><· ;i \ r',1"•(-, • ,· • ,· ,•t· r , • \. t" ,· • • •. . ,• ·.. i i ~·~ 1 ------- ·r~:.~·:.\ •, ,'-;- ·<r~.f~~-.~,>/•\ ·~•· :,> . . . . · v--~··.,. ·:-}. ,; '. ... -;' : -'f::{lit ; h: • ··.. •alibi: ·where ··sucit· deJence;_has_:1io(·.-be?1~ q,.isclosed by , .•. ' •· . ·. • ; ,i ·, r',',; ,./.,:."· ~~· ,, .:.~ ~- ' . an ;accused persbti before the·pro-~ectlii'o·n, clo.ses it~· ·case:· What this ·s·~ction tneans is that where such· disclosure·; is not•, made, the court, though talking cognizance of such defence;· "May i1i its discretion, accord no weight of any kind to the defence": The Court of Appeal 1n Charles· Samson's Case went further stating that: "In the present case, the court took no corptizance whatsoever of the alibi, _both in the summing up to :- the assessors and in the judgment thus occasioning a mistrial and a consequential miscarriage of justice." In the case of Hussein lddi and Another V. R (1986) TLR 166 see also the case of Ahas Matatala Vs. Republic, ' (supra)_it was held that:- "It was a serious misdirection on the part of the trial judge to deal with the prosecution evidence on its . own and arrive at the conclusion that it was true and · credible without considering the defence evidence .... It seems clear to us that the judge dealt with the prosecution evidence on its own and arrived at the conclusion that it was true and credible

and as a . ~'. result .he rejected th~ alibi put forward ,as. a J. I 12 :. . . :. :::;:,:;-i ',.::C,::fi; ;;:.. ~ ;\ .:..•. ,_ ••-~ > .C·''-'; ,_.;' -r .-::;.:\; :,. :- ~~ i- . :;: .,i;c <; ·,. ~/·. _; :; ) .. ~-"~~ I I. . . ·. _}~;-t>:::_.<:~ -_ ._ -. ·- . -·Jr:· ~. .: ·: _:~·~-··--:~~:~:~-: ; ,_.: i~ . ·: .. ~-- ... i\' . .' . ' ,· . i '' ,:.,.. .' ~ d~libJrqte H~·. ,._· .. :·:1n -~ur: vie,w· 'this IS : a i serious· misdirection . . . _The judge .sho~ld .have . dealt • ·with I ..the prosecution · and defence. J . evidence an~ after i· ! I analysing such evidence, the judge sb,omld then reach a conclusion." ,! In the instant appeal the ttial Court in reaching at its l I decision failed to consider the appellant's defe~ce. That is a serious misdirection which rehders the whole decision· I valueless. I • I . I On the issue- of contradictiJns in the· testimonies of the : I prosecution witnesses, I failed to see contradictions as . . ' i contended by the appellant regarding the· time when the / I alleged · incident was committed. The alleged; incident took place on the midnight of 26 th F~bruary, 1999 ~t about 00:00 hrs onwards the date automatic:ally change to . 27 th February, 1 . l I 1999 as the way PW 1 and PW3 testified. Taus the fourth . ! ! ground of the appellant's appeal is hereby rejectied. l I I , In conclusion and for the , above reasons I am satisfied • I that the

appellant was convic~ed o~ weak 4n,d insufficient prosecution evidence. The prosJcution case w4s not proved to I the standru;:d required in a criminal case like this. The appeal I i is hereby · allowed, conviction: and sentence of 30 years I, impri~pnment and _:12- strokes! of corporal punishment· are r-,.•->. . q~ashed"and ~it a~ide. r I . • . ,.,.~.• . . .. ,,. ·.·. 13 .... ,,,. .. '•• .. ., : Th~- ~ppellanf ·is .to he· 'ieiea'sed forthwith from custody unless hild:on a differ~nt aii:d'iawful _, ... matt'er. ·. . - ·M. s.-sHANGALI . JUDGE 5/12/2014 •: . Judgment delivered in the presence of the appellant in p<:;r_son and· Ms. Blandina Manyanda, learned state Attorney representing the respondent/Republic. . M. S. SHANGALI

JUDGE 5/12/2014 ... 14 ,, - - ..,,.,, ., '.. ... ., .•.