19930415 TZHC Tanga1

i:1 ;,··· 3. J.1·.\ :,~{;'_Tj_·· 1 I ?<~II ?TJf1 1 i •• o •••• ., /.\.l:i}~·· .~L.tt:i.'.S..1 S l'lre Oi;):]G IGdIHA::I l 5. B)_;·,J.J;I -~ . i_; :rDI I J U D G E M E , •..• ..,_,, ............ •.> ·•'·•··•··• • ._•.·•:•• 4 • : • I•··' T a I_will hasten before to po:J.nt out tbsi.t t1:G deccJ.'C::e es c1::'•;?"i'fn out uc.s incm,ipiete 0.s it f2lls s'.:,01"t of' sfDtinu; whet"t,c:r· jw.: ~eusnt ·u9.s ~ntered us prnyad for, instcud it only shows that: It is :eu:.."'Jt, 1.~ or~ce1~ed, t ·:9. t, -tt1e d.0fe11.a·t111t b·ec.r tl1c· cOst~s o·:r.:~ t,lJis. in ~arch _1990 the 1st, 2nd ~nd 3rd appell2nts . respectively. . / record Player, 30 records, ons .,.., psdlock all valued at shs.70,080/=.'.L'h(!'I::et"in•ee were arestr:d ar.1d l"ernsncled in custo:.:-. It is e.L,_c.·,c;cd t:.,.e.t t:.•,i·y .:c!r3,,d.ttcd to ;_}.: ve bw.~gL:-d into tbe houia and to h2ve stolen, but b8fore bcinG taksn to court for prosecution tha 4th and fifth Jefend~~s,ie tbe 4th guar~mtr::ec3 :?oi:-rnver, up to JunG 1S9C· only shs.23,3UO/,·., 11:::d brccen p,:i:ld, tb2 b,,,.l2nce of s:::•s. 44; ?CO/:= remrn1nng n.~;rUCi. . . .. ,__, .. ., ? / . ••••• 2 •••• '-~'lv: plaintJ.ff now responde:r1t t:1_2r'e:fore b1•ou,)1t the ·action fm"' th~ recover'y of t~1e b,,J.2.nce of s:_is.LJ-4, 700/= -~ . In t:.:i.eir wr:i."tten ;Jt;,h:1L1-,r,:,t _ tl12y Cerd,~ d the 1st, 2nd 0 -\ a.nd 3rd de:fcndarits to I1r:vc bur:,::;led into ·c . ;e :.1ot.1ese or tl1e pl[.:L: tiff e.t all, and furt':ie:-.:· ,J e·d.e:,d to '..:ic,·Je stolen any'cin;; thc:vefr·orn • '.L'he 4th n:m1 5th ciefencJa.nts ,Je:::ii,1cl to :L::ve ' mutually to acrccd to compen;;ate to tbe plaint--if.f and ~t,;i-~ that annexture 1!/\_it to t1.1e plaint uo.s 1-1ri tten under _threa.t and coe1"'cion -· ..... 1-.,, - •• ·-·' J -J .,, ... 1st, 2nd 2 -:o 3rd c1efenda.i.Tc.'3 who He Pe child1•2n o:f 4th ::,::.d 5th cief'encl a-,:rts. ':::",w d efeiJdants therdfope p1•ny0cl fo1.., Pe fund of s·:.rn. 23,_300/== ufiich t-11~ un~n..tfully obtcJ.n"·c: :f':emt, ·t.bem t~E'OU[)l '[o.e isc1w~s t::1 ;:1t :rers framed at the co1~rn1encBme·:i-c O.·f"'.· ·•c :_·_1,""., '1"'' :, ri- -D l.:,_") l 1,,;.,,~. 0' 'r-.:·e ., ·na L \_ ".1 (.~.. S ..L J 10'"--$ -~0 .... ,J •• _. ( 1) JL,et·Li;~r the ·t)J. ah1t if:i:' ~ s house wss burgled into nnJ the thinss listed in tbe pl2int stolen tbcrefrorn. {3) ·w11etb;,r t:1e 3 abbve pLJadec~ voluntarily (4) If yes, whethc·:..." the police ;.;ere justif'icc1 not to ta.ke t~.1em ·co court :md if t'crny were not justified w1.1e"C:1n.., ex·;1ib:t t P1, G.iJ.nexture A ·iv8S 12.lvi'uJ.ly 2,nd yoltints.:cily ent21... ,3d in·uo. • I.. (5) Whct~1e1" the 4th 2:,1c1 5th clefenclants accept2,d to pgy fo1" l_st, 2nd a.nu 3i->d debt, if yes, wheth0r it wD. s Ln-rful .. . • . . . 3/ .. .... 3 • .• :_·;~\.1 e t x~:t 0.J. ;:~I<1[5i ::.rGI~~-·: te ~cour1d. :Co . . -: -c,·;_·} C' pl ::1.ir: tiff ft:CJ. :J ent; e1.,ed j1.HJ2>2i.n:=:::..1 t in hiB fa-vom... in tho sm;1 of shs. 44., 700/:::..: with· ' The first g7ound states tbat tbe trial magistr2te misdi- J.";;Ct:::d her•sel:f on a point of fnct and law in t'nat he belcl t::i.cit the respons:Je:nt owrn=;d the items alleged to hovo been stoJen by the 1st, 2nd F:.nd 3rc1 defenda.'1.ts _--;,rhile t·,1ere w2.s not sufficicn:i; evic. ence to suppo~:•t such a1J.egation aud tho value thereto. On the sc cond gr>ou.nJ it is claimad that h2d the t~ial magistrate propsply scrutinizrc,-d the 0vi,18nce he 1st., 2nc/ and 3rc1 defendants ne--.ver buri:zl .;:~ '-' d, t'"" l.": p,a·in·l•1"fr'"'/r,..~sDo·"·'!e.1·1./-'s 0 J.c: ••.•.. ,_, / \: l.4\_.; 1,: '··1ou L . c., ,:.,1;;; l, 0 t On the thi:i."d grouncJ it is assorted tbat the l10sponcJents evi:10nc -:! 'i·J:3.S contradictoi-'y nnd fake e,.nd if it had been 1 propez•ly scrutinized it iwuld. hr:0.ve been found so. It is cLJimed on ground i'ot:r that the t:::-ial magisb:-ate misJirocted bsreself on a point of fact and law in acJi·;1itt:i.ng ann0:x:tu1..,e 'A 'anc:1 relying on it, while the 1st, 2nd 2.~1d 3rd defendants nc:,ver aclmowledged the buT·glary B.nd the 4th and 5th defendm ts \Jere fraudulently led to sign not lmowing that th(::y 'i,1ere sic';J.J.ing a bone: to :(;8,Y money to the H83)J0m1ent. Lastly., it ii:J 0lo.J.I1i<:d in ,.:.:;round 5 tbe.t the le aPnod · J.esid(:r,:d; i:ii23LTCl'"r,te miuoi:i."'ectec1 herself in point of law f;111d fact in firnn.ng that P:J2 1rn.s oly neclig,!n-G instead •••• 4- •••••• of finding that he was an untrusiN a!. thy police officer who / coulrl have faked annexture "A 'leading up to the framing up of the Respondents. According to the plaintiff at the tris.l he was the 01,mer of a Record player and. some 30 recoi--•ds all of which he had bouc{ht in Hoshi way back in 1972 for some 70, 000/ =• One day in F'ebx•uary 1990 he retu:ened home,). l:sr -;~o .:::.~.< bi~ house broken into and his record player and records stoleti. Through his ·investigations he claims that he discovePed that the three - 1st - 3rd defendai.1ts 1;-rere the culpPits. According to him at the CCH office they agreed to have r' stolen and promised to return the propc~rty·. I-Io;,1ever, he was not paid back his property. Instead his brot:1er, 4-th defendant approached him with a view to finding out what had happened. They discussed the mattei-•, but when the discussions bore no fruit· - he repo1~ted the matter to the Police at Kisosora. The three defendants were arrested end remanded in custody. However, their parents and the plaintiff who wel"e relntives decided to settle the matter at home. It was agreed that the plaintiff would be po.id shs.70,000/= o.nd 25,300/= out of this was p~id. What was termed Hbati ya rnal:;,:uba.liano :: was signed . by the 4th and 5th defendants .and also by the plaintiff - there was no witness to this agreement. In this agreement the rl•;intiff meI•ely states that he h'.',l.S r0ceived a total of shs.25,300/= out of 70,000/~= value of a record playel" which the defendants hi:H:1 agreed to pay. T'he document_ goes on to state ful"tb,::1r t}12t thcr•e I'enains yet 44, 700/= which the defendants claim 11>::,ve ho ability to pay. The plaintiff seeks enforcement of this d ocurni:mt. The defendants on the o:i;ll .~ ~1t111d disputed the plaint ff" s · claim. The 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants denied to have burgled into tbe plaintiff's house or to h8ve admitted doing so. • • 0 • 5/ ... 5th defen::Js.n.ts cL:,i:u,:d tht1.t they did not J.mo1v the contents o:f l},11.n~xture "A 'wl1en they endon::cd it by th{::ix"' thumb pr•ints. rhe.y-ybe:b:il..Ei11@@, tha·c they were pD;ying r.1oney to b.sdl out t·c1eil"' 1 \ sons not to pe. y, fo:e theL.' sins .• Now, was it establiubad on t~e evidence, that the on t·,12 pl.:.,int sto1d1 there:f::>omc· '(fas it pi"ov2d tc1.?.t he O ',"'""'c.i' dl.-'0 1s'·1c'1 L- l,. ·'-'·,·1·1.(,,..., L, .:,·•1yP"'.y'> ,_~.L .,.t.....:-1 :...}'.:) ~--"•'",S ··-·:-1~' ~ ~IJ c;.;.. ", v,,1,,e -'-'-1'"i·,-:.·'·o t.., . "~.... ~--..... V n·,.-,oV"-'''··':' .c -- (.!,~- L~ 'C•......, ,, L ........ - \._ Allego.:cion of burglnry, im})ut:Lnc; criminal liability is a serious allc:;-ga-cion ~;-hich must be p:2ov0:d on a hic;her ,"'')_"' c:.I' d !·: (., __, u cL11,, .o 0.L. -.-- ,....f' p.1:0v- ~tan orJin~ry allesations in civil matters. Did·tha defendant discbargc this onus of proof? I do not think he did so :fpom tb,3' eviclence on ::-.Bcorc1o "}e only have r.1is evi00n ce t:1at ~1i.s hou:3e vlo.s btE"gled into. ~l~he Police did not visit the scene, nor did the militia. A criminal . rc:901"t 1ms not even p:r•o;)Cl"ly :filed. iTo other witness c::'.'...; j for·w8.rd to testify to tlie efL,ct that the plaintiff owned the pl''operty in controversy. If indeed he did, then no doubt witnesnes woulc'1 lF.ve come forword, es;_)eci1=1.lly so if u . it ·eras being used in s. rec!trj1t, then the -vrlue given by thG plaintiff uoulc7 b::<•:. :ie 9.ny ordin2.ry i:1lind. Could a re-cord player in 19T2 c Jt 70, 000/=? the.t is unbelievo.ble w/: f:,"orn this o.llec0.tion alonG 0 ~~i:• would be bound to find the plaintiff 1i.ntrustful. courrnel for the s.ppellru1' s that hud the trial mo.gis tr2t e co.r0fully sci...utinize6 t·~w evL:ence of the plo:l.n.·ciff she woul0 h~ve hestitnt~a to fin0 it proved that his house was e burgled into and pvoprty worth 70,000/= stolen. Another issue 3:aiseJ wo.s whether· the 1st, 2nd, and 3:Pcl defencJsn·cs· had pleaded guilty? Indeed evidence did not s·:loE that they admitted their guil~. -;;e only h.si.ve the evidengp of ·che plaintiff that they did. so, ..•..•• 6 I •.. but this evidence we have, ~ireaOy found not to ba credible. The defendB.nts veheme::1tly oeuicd any inv--·. Ne:::1cnt end sserted that they were beaten up something which made their parents si;sn a doc1J.rnc:mt which they did not comprehend. '1 0 me the 1 P ~ rtru-riR~ by the defenoan.ts soundec"J more credible when ,:b.e evidence a.s a whoL~ is considered and though I was not at the trial, bm-;eve1~ the ('lefencla:;:-d;s explanation h0.s the sound of t 1..11 t 11 compared to thet of tbe plaintiff. I 8.m saying so be cause even if you to.l-cc rumexturo 'A "for example throughout it 1s the plsL1tiff who i.s sta.i..i.c..;.t;, not the pthor wo..y round. If it we.s a g0;.1uine documont, then no doubt the defendonts would have. been the onc•s to state that they had undertaken to p~;.y so much on behalf of their sons. Their sons sigr.wtures o.o not even E!ppco.P on this docm10nt. This document was not such in rny view as to b.ave :1ny legc.l force tha way it is~ It WiotS o.f no evidential value_ whatsoever.• On a careful evaJU-o.tion ot the w:1ole evidence as per . record I am satisfied tha.t the trial ma.gis trat e misdirected herself in finding the case for• the pLdnti:ff esto.blished. Ho.d she carefully considerGd tbe whole evidence she would: no doubt hs:ve found th1::'..t the pl1;1_intiff '• s case fell f.o-w short'( of the standard of proofrct1uL<C, and she would have dismissed the action with costs. In the light of thG above the appeal by Ally Oma1"i, I,\.~i· l.ibcg• Athumani Ewitua, Ornari Kisiruni and l3o.kari Rashidi is nllo,wed with costs in this court and the court below. E,A,KILBO PRH; Ext. JUHL3DICTION. 29/3/93. Date:·· 15/4/93 Coi--•am: N.L.K,Kannonyele, DH Hr. 1'll3akamari: For· the appellant \ Respondent: - Present. •••• 7 / •• n •••••• • •••••••• .9_0..:,1:£::t_:_ Judgement pronounciod in chambers at ?:a.ngs. this 15th day of Ap1"il, 1993. The appeal is alloI;-ed and Rights of appeal are explained to the.aggrieved party. M. L. K. KANNOlTIELE '-~''"·'--~- - DISTRICT R:tGL3TrtAR ........--..-.......~ 15/4/1993 I certify that this is a true copy of orie:inal. w· M. L.I\. K1UTJ:;fONYELlE 1:;/4/1993 /