19820215 TZHC Dar es Salaam

LT 111Ff£; IiIGii COUi?.'.l: OF TAi'TZAlHA ' (:i1C) c::u:: :::c:AL APJ?~.c'.L NO. 3 or 1931 ( n:;:_•ou -:~ -''" deci.::;::..m~ of ti:c Di:Jt:cict Court of :G,~c;mc.oyo at 2s.i;ru,103ro in •>cL..inal .,\1,:;,eal Ho. 21 of 1921 - Ori(:inal ·KLr.tn..?/'18. J:'rimary Co,n't -- Grir:1inal Case lfo. 4-1 / 80) o O O o O O O O O O O O r;, 0 0 0 O ¢ 0 0 O o O o O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O ·~ 0 0 REPUBLIC oooooooooo•oooooooooooooo,••0000000000000000.:ooeoooo I 11JZAVAS, J.X. In Kiwanga P:ci;car3r Cow:·t CriE!.innl Case ~-fo. 41/80 the EW92.liant v1as cbargc,d with and convj_cted of forcible entry m,d '.!,a1icious da.rn.ac;e to property c/ss 85 and 326(1) o:.t' t:::-ie l\m-:7.l Code and se11t0Eced to a :::ine of shs. 100/== or 3 months impriE.om,e:r"l"t in def3,ul t. He was a.lso ordered to pay shs. 6 1 000/= co:upensation to ·che complainant. Ee appealec! to the Bagar,1oyo District Court which dismissed bis appeal but ordered t:w:c the (luestion of compensation should be properly looked into by the p:cirn.ry court. Still ,.lissn tisfied. the 8.};pellant has come to this court. The tacts tl'1a t culr.1...i.na-/;2d ·co the arrest 2nd arraitJ1!Y18n"c o::': the appell:::mt u:ro in brJef o.s :follows~ Shabe.n:L \rillag2 t~~1G :.l!ipc::l2-r:r.11t :1:JIYCo<.1..c:·led i3118.·i.1n.r1j_ jJ2.1J.d:L C.;.lld aD:.::\:";d 1.1ir:. if' l1e cc"'...~J_d allo-:,7 :liLl ·Co cuJ:ci1.r2.~;~ t::.0 l,.~rr.C!. ·~~:·~::.t J-~e (I,¥:t2) ~.1·1<} alre£1.C.~·· sold t6 2haba:n.i,. 1 again told that :.10 coulc1 not e~rter into tJ:1.c l:..'.nd ,;,::; it had ,J2en im~rovec1. 8..nd t:.1.e lz..:nd land b.ad ne5l2cte-d l. +li V • It· is on t:-,esE.: f:.,c-cs t:.nt the oi:mer o:t" the land co:~,pl2.ined to authorities and subsequently t:'.,~ app,;;J_lant 1.1::1s a.r:r-os~;ed and cl·mr\;ed ";-;~_t:1 :-".'orcible entry and n1a.licious damage to property. ~ Befo:ce th.is Cot:t:~·t t.bG apJ)Gll,111t a:r.·cued tl1cit t~·1e lcw.1d l1c~ e11.te£_ed E~id !;Ult i va ted was no J!1an I s land. 2 primary court did not record his defence properly. I:Ir. Uronu who repres2ntec1 the Director of Public Prosecutions did not apparently support tlle conviction because he said: 1. The charge was bad :'.:or duplicity as? it was ar3"ued 1 the two offences we-:::e included in a single count. 2. That the sentence of one month imprisonment fOJ: both offences was omnibus. 3. That .the value of the property alleged to have been c:estroyed was not shovm in the c·1argesheet. And lastly that the ardor of the primary court that the appellant should hand t::1e said land. to the complainant :lid not take into account the improvements made on t~1e land by the appelle,nt. The questions as to v1hether the app9llan-i; cmtered into co;,:plainant I s developed land and· doc"c2~oyed pine..;oriplo plants were c;.u::::stions o:f fact. Both the original offt1er of tLG sl1~;::-c.t2, (P\'72) 9 a~1d the cell-leader, (DVi2), said that they ;1e,d tol.J. the .;.p~,ellar..t fr1at he could not enter the L:.nd as it h~d already ';)een develo 1_1ed and: pla..."1ted with pine-apples. They· were accept0d. as credible witnesses~ And, what is n:O1'0 9 j:·c is clear from the evidence in tl':.e primury court that the appcll2.nt hi.r;;3 ::ll' :::d.mi ttoe: tl-1at the l.:md he ,mtere;d v.a3 not vir,;in lanci and that tt.:t~ said lan.c: had beon planted with pino-c.rples. I-Iis only argummt in t~1c lo,7e1· co1Tts '.'ia::.: tLat although the land llad yine-apples plants it, had beGil ns,::.;l·;cted. The '3h8Jilb2. mc.-r h::~ve: i)GC~ lleslected. a:f'ter i•c had bCJCll planted \-,j_ th pine-apples; bu-~ "(::-in"c L.: :fa1· :froL saying that i•:; was a virL_;in l::,.:r1d belo- nginc; to nobody 2.110. t.hcccfore enti•clinc the appellant to enter a;::d develop it. That the a;)pelliint w2.s tole~ that tl1e land belor:ced to the complainW-t and -~hat it v1as pla!ltec:. w:;_t~1 pine-apples is ov:;..dent not only from Daudi 1 (PY!2) 9 the previous o•n:.'l.sr of -~he .s~::.e,1:1ba 1 but also fro112 appellant's ovm witness, the cell-le8.dei·, D'li2. From the evidence and tr,e c:onduct of the appellant t 7:.tcirc could be no doub·c that the fD.cts constituted tile o;flence, . of malicious dar.1age to property. I agree r:ith the J.earned state attorney ·that there 'ii2.S duplicity in the charge as ti1e accused wa:;; charged with two offences in one cou...>J.t. But as the learned state atto.rney will no doubt agree witL mo, a rne:r:e ir:::·c,:ularit;y in a charge does not- per. se vitiate a conviction. To vitiate a co:c.v:Lction an ir-regularity in the chC!.rge J:!lUSt be. ~hown to have prejudiced the accused to such an e;x:tent as to make· him unable to lmow t_ho nature of the charge agr.inst him. In tbe p1~esent case th,2re can be no dispute that the, appellant lrncw all alori__z tz1at oi;.e o:c -~1w cl1a:c~;-::;:z against him was ,that of unla,;;::::'ully and Viilfully destroyinc coµpl2,ir.u-~nt 1 s :pine-c:-,pples. ~L1hG irro'_;:1.~1~irit:r in ~c>.e c2·.12rc:e :i.s' in n-i:y· opj_riio~1~ C:LLJ.',:.,,.,Cle 'i.;ndr.::i_. . ,SC:!ctiol'l ... : \~/ c.· ·:/· ..: c~---:j_:·• · :::.0..1 .,. : .... ~ .-· ...-: ,,..... ! ~ .. ; ' .•. .,.~ Save for the convj_ct:~011 in :,:-esp:;)ct of ti1G offence of ~orcible entry which has b•~en qua8hed tl1is appeal is dismissed in its entirety. DAR :8S S/,.LAAW. 15.2.82 ---------- -·-------- . Q