19780719 TZHC Dodoma

, Il! THE HIGH COURT OF TAN-ZANIA- ,.. ' · AT DODOMA , · ... ···APPELLATE -----=- ' .. : _. .. ·... ;_ .. · ' : ... - ~ ,· . JURISDIIJTION :· - .. '• . : . . ... ' "' : •. ~ ~ . ' .. ,,, . . . . ;: '..,cnnAINAL:APIEAL MQ .• '.81 OF 1977 •• r , • <'•· . •• • ' ORIG INA.I/CR):MINAt •.! . . . _.; . . .c 1\SE No' •.. 206 . .·,.- .. rnr' .1 976 ,. : . . •.· . i ·-·· ; •, .. / ,,t , , I • >.,,. •• i• • •, • • • :•, '- ,• · .-; ADOLF. . ELIAS. ..RUGEI . . . ·::_·: -·.: : MUKAM-U,·. . . ·." •.. _ •••. ~ . -App~lfant . . . . vers-US-;•r- . T•' ·, ··:::: .. . ': :-'_ ·'..:,··:.·THE- rufPtfuLIC .-~-. ~; ........ ~. ~ .:~.: ~-, ••. Resporiderit •· ...·.. . ·' . ' . . ':' • ' . ·: .· ... ; . :· . , • .. ; ·; ~.. . ; . . ,; . . ' . . .' ,. ·l· ; ·•·• • ·, ., J ·U D G·M' E.N ·T .-/. JONATHAN 8 : J·. . ..... .. .. . ~-, ·: ADOLF Ell'AS RUGAIMUKAMTJ was;:in; the. dist.ricir c6u;t · .;- convic_ted of four count,s· of ;fraudulent 'false·.acc6@t:j,.ng arJd __fow :. other cour2ts of stealing by publi.c :·servant~ .He:'wat:S seni:;enc~}i . to a substantive terin of fiv~. yec:i.r§·.-·1mpris·onment ~ Agalllst · the convict ions he ha:s. _brought this. appeal through Mr. C.hambakar·e-: .···· Following th.e ena¢'tment of .:£he Decen;tralization of iG:~\t~rn,,Jei'J.t' -· Administr·-1tion ( Inte.ritn pro-Visions) :Act\·: 1:972, the appellant . . -~ .· was assign~d the duties' of· Re~ional; ·Acco:untant I Iringa :in the· (_):ff ic:8.. ·_. of the Regier.al Development Directpr (R,.D.D.). He appe .1.rs to· h avG· b been contim:1ously on duty untiJ. ·hfs· susp:ensi-on- m :tl:+e mot.th• of April, 1976- -_f·o116wing: the cha;tg-es,giii'.lrtg r;ise:to tria.. o.. .: · . . proceedings.,. T.hey relate· t9· fc :'.j;o~·tr1:lilsactions:,tr1a4e ·bet1iJeert the ~1 01:,th 1 c, months. Of. J\Tovembe:r;-;1974 and March,: Y976~ :In:_;:1;h~ first trai;i.#3.actio~ it is charged tha,.t .011- DQce_mber 7, 1-'974 the appellan.t, .with· int·ent · j to defraud,. ·m"r:ide ·a f:S:ls·e payt;1_er1;t ·voucher· for shs-. 3.1., 412 .05· . "[. purporting t.o, make· an·. adj_µ$tmep't' of. a sim.1lar am·ount of .money wrongly ·credited . ·to :the d_epos}t account of·'the R •.D-.D •. ' s office -· and that-,he_,the:rt proceeded: :.to s+.eal •sucfr sum_•. :~ Sirnilarl,y,_ · in.ithe. remain·irrg three lrgnsa-ctions ·it ·was -alleged t_hat, 6n tJTS:y :21 _, 1.975· July_· 23, 1975 · and J~q1,rch 23, 1976 he made a flalse , payoent vchicl1ier in each case .Purportipg_ to be ~ adjustment-of mo:ney. ·wro:n'.g1y ., credited-.to,_.t'he deposit acc01mt. lie thereby stole..the sums of shs~·;31,365 •.90 36,.823.80 and 6:1 ,~-20.35,· ·respEefc-tiv-ely. '. The R.D.D. 's ·office (l?)pe_r:ated· th;r-ee ·acco~:ts~ namel·~/~· the Recurrent ·Expenditu.re Accoun.t f the Deposit Accmmt and the Ageri.cy A.ccount •. W,e. are-here, con.cerned only with the.first· two · accowts-:_~ '.For the R.D~D. of ~ice. to efi'ec't payrieht through 's the bank• there· wa$ an arrangement -_whereby a payment voupher would;· be· prepared in that off ice and taken to the off"i:ce .,of the D~s:rict.'.Development Director (DDD)' _where cheque woulq. a be writ 1,en :out and signed.- Al ~ogether·;. there wane· :six · · bank. si·gna:tories. The appellant was en~ of therri, while ·all the other .. fiv~ .-we,re. accounts offiq.ers· :in the DDD' s office.- · . · .· .. A chdque ·waq::ito, be,: signed only lany. two '-of these· six signat6r:Les. ,:·• __ From theDDDf_s offJce it wov].d_'oe · despatched to the RDD' s . , · · , <?ffi~e·_ togeth~r with the sup~g'rting._payment voucfr~r.· or. p~yroll, aS-• 5the ,case might be, and. -l;here · was a . despatch hook · _ ., · . ~aintained for this pur.pos-e •.. · The cheque would ·then be ·cashed at the bank usually, if not· oniny, by the appellant who · · ,. · would countersign tb.e cheque. ori tr:ie. ·'.r\;3verse s:ide. There were however occas,ions :when ;:i_ t was· intend·ed to tr~sf er funds. . . .. : _r fr-em•:.;.one o.f the two ,.ac_co-qnts to the other. · Tn such cases the'·r• ." relevant cheque would be ·crossed at· the DDD' s office.,· to ; . , : · :_ .. ensure the money was 'deposited into the intended acc·ount;. .,_. .· An exchequer receipt would be prJ:ilpared at the RDD' s office · · · usually by PW. 9, the cashier· ·and the cheque then deposited into the bank. Every cheque would end up in the DDD's office •. -./2 ) I' 1 . ·, The wi tneS$.· the:r;i. l?,ad the cheques-. written out, signed and·: given to 'tn.e appeJ;lm'lt_: tog~ther· ,with the ·1SUPE-'Ort,ing documents. ·.The:c.heque 'for'sns~·:61,220.35, he said, W;.. S to. . be deposit-ed:;tmd oueht:·i;o h::ve_·teen.·.crossed.·:. It wasJ;i_owever not cro$sed ~nd.v.16.s . J-a:ter cashed by.·the 1 ~ppel~t toe;cth·~:r _with the c 1Jeq-ue~;f or .sh9 .~ . 6}, 3.40 ~ 3'5. · · ' ·. · '. ..· · · . . . . · / • ' ' . .: •.;' .~ •.' • :• .' ,' • ~ •, r •~: • • •. • · The _appel;J..ant' gb.ve _·a ;r?tailed. aicc:o,,m·t for ca.shin.g th:1 t cheque. It .was 're9eiy·ed 'by _him~. he .said,. together: with . the one. for sh.s .• q·?_,_88b/35·:\Jithout any ·suppo.rting doc\i.rnei1•ts. rehe:re were nUJ!lerO;U;S, q--:~her. '_cheq1ies a_s.:_K-rnll, inqfU:ding the sal2.ries cheque :for sh:s~63_;3·40··.35.·· T.p.:is•-ch_eqµe, ... -•· . . however' W8.S ac_com,iJan~:ed: by_ th·e relevanj; ;Jay-:-roll. .Those : · • 'b:eing pay;.days he ,ass;timeq..:the ·two ·cheque's wi~hc5U:t accompanying 'documents, were .for.. the. s::=11aries. of two departmentsuri'der .the RDD. He ther2for.e c~_shed all the three cheques. On g·etting ·. . back to_ the office,. hoV:rnver, -he dis·covered th<3 ,_.cheque. ·fQr shs. · 61,220.35 .was not for tLri.y salar-ies aft :!r all; it w:::i.s for de~bsit.·.:so, too, he- ~aid ~a~·th~ chequ~ fo~~shs.62,880-;35. I His irnmediate re,1ction was· to· ue·posit.· tb,e monies j_nto the· bin.k at 6:nce., That, however, proved -impracticabl~ :.that day· as h.·e I -eould, ho .l:onger lay hands on the police. escort to· bank . · :' · · the money. He_ there.fore decided to keep it and hev.:e' 1t ready , for banking. on. Jhe next morning/· : He· then considered- wliiJre:, to secure-, it ·ov-e:ri:nig]_-J.t 9 ahd ,_h,,ving ·in'· mind :the theft .o'f a l<1:rge sum of money his office ·had ·recently exper.ienc,ed he dsci::.Gcl against keeping it in the safe or in the strop'g room,. .Inster:.:.d, he kept the money j_n his off j_ce drawer. · He kept the frey to that drawer sep':3:rately from··9ther keys. Looking at the · . reco·rd,. at this point the appellant via:s less than clear tut ··:he gives the im:pressioh' _th.at'. ..9.t ·'thAt stage an. i.de:::i.- c:.ro(YJ-Gd -his ·mind, when he ·said there were sev.-eral people:,making:cl9,ims . .si.nd it occurred to 'hini. tha·t· he might use ·some of· that m6ri.ey to .meet ,,.-.-_, thos-e clc:1:ims ~ . _,T·o that ·end·, he ··contrived an: ar~;·.ar; gem.en t wiJ.ereby ,f#<' / he was to, writ:f ou~ a ~')~J7D1 ent/yo'ucp.et for afhiq1?-e to ·be prepared .and d_epo.si ted· int·o ijfi.e bank.· He acc.prdingly, .had . -!--aDbther. cheque for shs.61,220.35 pre·pared,·nnd bariked·~gain.st an exchcqu:er rece:ip.t of his., off.ice. At the ·end· Qf the, daj then, the · s_um _of, sh.l;l. 124 ~ lOO~ '.35 '~ns lo'ck'ed ,iP . n· clrawor :J11d a cro.s'se_d chc➔q:ue for. shs. 61' ,220."35 proo:esGec"!. '.against a }Jayr-1on t vov.cher wr.-itten by ~he appellant. to re.Rd:·: · · ·· ·· I ._; 0 Being .,ap adjustr.1ent of the UT?l.Oun~- vn70:D.,c_;ly ·credited to ·· the deposit '! ·,, . account." r,· . . , . . . •., ..!, . . .. · - . "· :;_ On the next_··g.ay, he__ clatr:1.ed,·p:e would·have·banked'the .money It is not. clear. ~o_w8ver "if th:1.t would have be_(;n posfl;i.ble even after de,')ositing ··t0-n.t cheque. Be· that as it P?,Y, tW'3.t day he :L.o()\:ed for ·the key· b_ut he· could not .find it ,up til:t he ·was arr:estcd ab out. two weeks ·1ater. He hg;d n-0t .in the·· r1eant ime ·-reported its i9ss or dbn_e anything to ensure ·tlJe saf-e,ty of the money •. His house was searched durir-g ·t}ie inv.estiga tio'ns·. and a nµmber of expensive durables found. · He was· then taken to· h:i.s pffice to hahd over·. to another,· officer, w;hereupon he,-. o-:~ened -a::. ,. -9-f-~:w,er :and there ;tb ~ sy.rn.. of }shs.:~ 4' ,loo·. _35 w'as fo,und •.. There. ·was :=mother _._draw.er l.ocked; but,.:the appellant when· asl~ed to o·'p,~IJ; ~i;:t~~a\d the· ke;y ;ha:a. :be,en .lost a· long ·time . previously •. Jt.. ~tf..0 s then broken open·-ty. the police and there the surn· ·of s·hs. J20 ,-000' was found ·in. an:-envelope •. The pol:i,ce roundirg off .their investig1-tion_s di'sc"ove.red, the 'appellant·.~- ·had a- bank acconnt ··at B;tikoba with··. s_hs-._· 1-4 ,-·000 to his credit . ·~ ' . . . . .- . ! . ·. ·.... ·:. . '. ~ . . . . , /'· . '. . . ...... . ;. ' -t • • The cheque for. shs •. 6'1 ,-220.35i;-··it .rray _be t·em.inded; ought nqt· to J:f~ve been ·"<:::ros_s·e·d,·_·but th~ r~rnii:ss ·could _not obv~ously be blamed on the appellant :for, th::i;t '-r.1a.s· the direct· responsi billty of the clerks at DDD' s office •.·However:,. his subsequent . - 5 .- ., handling_ of th:?t cheg_\i_e was clearly dishonest~ . :Paymentf:. of salaries wa~ possible only where_ the cheque was, accompanit.id by the relevant .p~yroll; and after the. _ appellant obs_erving ·th~ cheque for, ··shs; 61 ,:220. 35 had no· suppor- ting pay-roll: it, should_ have beap _q+ear to h im it would. , · ·. • be a futile·exer_cis~ to rush.:to ca,.sh_the·cl'.}.eque ♦- Indeed;- ... without .the rel-evant :i;:~i?.;. 1 ---. 1 ;1 he w:ould have been handicappE?d in ··maki±),'g .?- break-dqwn of th~ _den_6!71in3:t ion.$ :h~ __ heeded~-.. Th,.1t, incidentally, ··was the task of PW .9 the ·,c~shier .. but, on th:.::i,t · occasion the appellant too~ 1.t upon himself _to ·d9 i.t·.· It we,s the .dei·:~nice.'ca,S?. t}~!lt_ th~ appelL;3int thst:'t day. cashed three cheques ',:2.nd th :1t like t_he ·cheque fur shs. 61,220.35, tlvrt for shs.62,88O h~d no iaupporti:n'g document. ~W.5, the bank cb.ahi.er was however cle·~r the appellant cashed only two cheques' n/{inely, tho~e for shs. 63,340~35 and s.1::i.s.61-22O.35,.·. The b'.?:.nk records would certa.inly. ,have shovm if he 1·1 f:d so. rcce..:. n tly en.shed an oth Gr cheque for s·hs. 62 ~;880. C.onsist ant 1;1 it'h .. the view tl1"..t there was no such cheque _cashed. at the b-ctnl~~ no documents were f ou:od in the ,1.ppellnn t I s dr::i.wer ei tber wj_th res- pect to this cheque·or•to th~t for shs.61 ,220;35. I find it inconceivable th t the_ appellant could reasonably hn.ve· overlooved the necessity for· enclosing a r,0te with the money to indic ,te they were· ··t11:'e- proceeds of the cheques in order 0 to· be· ,"'.ble J.,,.,-,.t0r to Jmow their source and their purpose. I 8.lso find the explanation e;iven by the 8.ppellrm t for preuqring the nayrnent voucher for depositing n cheque for shs.61,22O.35 to be altogsther unaccept,.ble. If.his intention wr,,,,s to kee-p p1.rt of th,;,t ·money in order to help him m'""et claims then being made 1.nd then 1.ccou.nt for it 1 the p:1.yment voucher would h3.ve been 2pp-ropri~.tely Norded. ·The clear impression . when he purporte.d: ..tQ.~-tr.'.lnsfer funds from the deposit account to the recurrent acco1..~t ,is th .t he W:-ts deliborately hiding the 0 truth. As has however been observed, there would ho1_.ve been accompanying notes if money had been pnt in the dr::i;wers with :-x an honest intention. He would have been expected· in th-tt case to kee.p the monies separ'ltely.· \vhat he did.,however, was to keep the sum of shs.12O,OOO in one dr:1wer .:1:nd the balance in n.n•Jther. lJ ow, when he w~s h.1.nding over he opened only the lRtter drqwer saying key to the other one h~d eot. lost. He would not . sc1.y wh,9,t WA.S in there 9 but when it 1rns :'orccc1 open the money was f oun.d. He claims to l:nve been meticulously preoccupied with the s ...,_fety of th::i.t money but such att5.tude does not seem reflected in his e..ppo.rent unconcern for the loss of the key to the drawer. The ~ppellant ~s has be8n strenuously urged by his ~dvoc~te wo.s not responsible for crossing cheques thqt resposnsib:i..lity 9 lRy in the DDD' S office. However, in view of the obser.v~.tio~:s I h.qve m2.de Jhe could not possibly hn.ve .'.l.cted honestly when he cashed th...,,t cheque nnd kept th.e money. I am thcref ore respectfully in · --. · ,. agreement with the lm-·rcr court th· t he had stolen the money found in the two drawers. already · There '.<.re doubts, qs ;-_ /: . ., pointed out, whether the appellant signed ag'linst the entries of tl1e miss5.ng cheques r-tnd wh'-':!ther he : took these cheques from the reconciJintion sect ion. There is ::.lso doubt, as r:Lghtly noted by le'.'1.rned resident mr-i.gistro.te, if he W:.?-S the only signatory nuthorised to c:1.sh cheques of the RDD' s office. Such consider"tt ions notwi thsto.nding, however, I qrn s2.tisfied the convictions in counts nos. 7 and 8 were properly re~ched. The other convictions n.s :ri.ghtly submitted by Mr. Lyimo for the Republic f\re dependent lf'lrgely on the outcome of the chnrges in coumt nos.7 & 8. The method engaged to perpetr~te • .j.. ,. 6 •· • • / 6 - the offences in counts 1 to 6, inclusive 9 • is simiitar to th,,~.t in counts nos. 7 & 8 but a ·little dissimil~ir · to , thc,t in counts nos,•. 9.& 10.·of which the appellant k"'..s acquitted. It 1,Y.::,s a d.'J.ring m_etb,od . ingeniously devj_sed., prob1.bly by more tban. one persqn, 'OI systemativally. dGfr'lUding nnd m>i:in~dling Govern :ent of l:1rge - suns of moil ey. One might how~ver 1rgue t~/· t, the f'.•'tct th~t. the appelJ1nt h 'cS been shown to-have ·been :Lnvolvqd 0 / one in the/tr,msactio:h cannot, sqfely le:::i.d to thE3 c or,clusion th ..,t he h-:td - a delin-sr::,t.e. h.::u1,<;l. als,q in :the _other off,ences. 'He· u::1.s, hoFever, in n unique positidn in th-it• he wns ·-the ·only perso:h' ;1uthorised. · to mak2 adjustments t.o trcinsfer L1.rge ·sun-i·s. froO: --olle'account,to qnother ::n d' th"',t cheques payable to RDp would alw:1,ys be put· bef 0re him for scrutiny bef ere being cnshed. To. this· m.ay be :'1,dded the f2~cts th\t in the RDD' s off:i,..ce hew,,_::;. the only of.ficer · authorised to c 2.sh cheques,· 8.nd thn.t he ,,,;r:1;s found' in posse--::;sion or a sum f"".r in excess of the amount. in count ne; ~8 as ,-we11 · Rs a··considerri,ble .'.JJTI,ourt of m.6'ney·inhi 9 bank qccom'it. Al.l considered. vjith. the :thoroue;rrnes_s. and en.re the facts ·d:eserve 9 I would think,· th.eref dre, th~t the. l'ciwer court W··11,s justified. to convict 'of !J.ll the: offences. · The 'Pi.ppeal is ?,ccordingly 'dismissed in its ent itety. Delivered in open. court tb is 19th dn,y of July,• 1978. •· . / . •, j .·'' . ·. ( '-f /1.(AI\, P.rii. Jonathan JUDGE