19781004 TZHC Mwanza

IN THE HIGH COVET OF TLNZliNill i.,i Jff·PELtfiTE' ·.JlffiISDICTiOI~ t. HIGH COURT ChHTiNJ;L L;PfFLL NO. 340 OF 1977 . . CiIGINi,L CHHHIU!L CiiSE NO. 53 OF 1977 OF THE' DISTRICT COUET OF MWi,r:u DIS'1RICT .A'I' :\!vii.NZ~ . ',. ; ·- ,. v e r s u s , .-·· 'THE RE'FUBLI C RESFONDFNT CfLRGE:- ·causing lwdily injury,· thr,U{;,h careless drivin& c/~ 41, .f3(2)(b} rf ·'the TNl:ffic ~·ct 1~73., JUDG·t(FNT Ki/rITI,. J~ Convicte.d, s011tenced to a fin,:i of Shs.500/=, O:l' five -nc,nths i-npris9n11ent, anc1 o':rdP.x.<:d .tc suffer, a pP.ricd .Jf disqualificsticn of tYJ.:rf;!P. y.;,::.its, by T-'Iwanze · District Court, the clppcllant seeks· tc, appeal,; at-;"' inst c0m1i cticn, sentence, and thf ,lisqualificu tion 1 orcti!r\' h<2 su:ffe.red. The appe llont, Wi:ls charg8d under section/ Subsection 42(1)(c) c1nd 63(2)(b) <)f the Road Tn1ffic ,;ct, 1973, an offe:nce .which ·.,c~ually, is,· - Reckless or d ... nr.;exous driving; al the ugh tne pc1rti~.tl.,,~s · of offence, · talk dbou.Jv causing bcdily injury, thI'oUfh caraless driving, an offance w1dcr Section 41 of the _Traffic jct 19730 Nctwithst~nding 1 the appellant was · qonvicted, under Sa•ction/Su0secticn 42(i)(a) - reckless driving, al the,tl:£:h, the.. a1Jrcllc1nt had. not been charw~d wi. th it. The. appallant, whc ha.d. elected' net tc prosecute his a:i:,peal 1 dces contend in. his rne'rno of appeal, th,lt the p:.:osacuti.cn

evidence, w s in'.sufficient, cnflicting and ccntrc.1dictory, thc!t his alleged ne[~lii:iencP. in thr: d•::,,iving, had nc,:t b'3<1.n prcv1:d. Lay, c1nd unlcgally assiste·d, the appell 9 nt cculd uot, technically attack th1;1 'charce. . Howevor, th_e lr.c:rnc.l S_tate Att0;rney 1 ~rs. ~a'tovu conced~d-, fer caiusi.ng bocfily injUI'y thrcu..:_;h c,cireless driving, secticu 42(1)(0) th~ of .' :'. Road· Traffic lict 1973, was a wr0ng cmo. She sub11i ttod, th"t, · al ,hc,ugh, that was ""Lhe cciso, the particulars of offancc, having unhidingly '.lducatod· thr. appellant, th;:;t acttIBlly the cffence, was causing 'bcdily i,nju:r.y thI'our:;h careless driving, t.b.a · appello'ntt · cculd w,t bP. sr-::id, ·\to have b'll?n pr<Jjudiccd, an,:J that thq ·d,d'ect : was curable, :under t~e provisilns of section 346 of the Crirninal· F'rcci:dure C0de Cap 20,., Mrs. 1atova, furth'3r ai•gucd th::..t,· the · al term,tive .convictc-:ri ~der secti0n 42(1)(a) uf the Traffic Act 1973, under which tiw appellant hs.d not b<>f'Jn c11arrnd, was irni;roper, first because, the offence under 42(1)(a), was in rclstion to the offence under 42(1)(c)t not a 11inor offence, n~'.•r was there; ci stat1:1,tory justificcticn, for such a2. ~e.rn1;:tive vrrdict. ·she finally sub-riiHea, even the evidence availablP. cculd not SUPfort cc•nviction, under · Secti_on 41 of thr Traffic lict 1973. Purstiin[; the

3Ub'llissic,ns above, thn. fir·s."i aspect to be d.ealt with, is the. pz:oprhrty of tho sGctions, pr.eferred in the charge • . The· particulars of Jffenc_e, vehim,ently allege, t·h-..:t the· appell,mt, did thI'cuch careless drivinG, cause bodily injury to the . 0(.''llplainc,nt, c,n tho 11/2/1977 o Obviously, as was pcinted out by the lc21rned Sta ta ilttornP.y, thi_s is "'n offi,nce wider the provisions of SActiGn 41 c-f the Tr&ffic i~ct 1973, hsrein aft,,,r, tc be briGfly refarr~d to ~s th~ icte It follows therefore, th~t, with the inc6rporeticn ,. 2 of the rF>levant punishment Sc ct;:i,i;n 1... tho.. richt char go, s rr.uld have been - c,rnsing bc-dily j_njUJ:'y, :r:fu:C:·u1:: h ·carr➔ lc ss drivinc; c/s 4lp G3(2) (b) oi -··.i:o boto Dr:fiui tnly, the prof<,r~ncc of .Sacticn 42(1)(0) of tho I,ci: fo:r ihr; off,11cc 9 of causint; b:-'dily injury, tnrnugh carelc·ss dI'ivi:ri:; 1, : 1,;a:,~ .. ::.:,,prcr,er~ -· Tho s-1.bmissic;ns by thQ Republi_c 7 on this, ,;;spl'! ct ,rP. ·:::_-h~ld:-. ... ,~ Th~ questi(•nr th. .;-i; f.::,llows ,_,ri he'2ls i'D1li.JC1:i:;tcly\' should be whether, th~ appollont was pMjudicatcd therP.bJo Wirso ~li,otovu., t' i.d Sl.lb'Di t tpct t . th(}_ ..9..Pl)Glla P t:s·...c@ RLcL.rio.t.. }J.;,\ I:.:, .•HJ_-_?.Il '. PI'.~.J.y.di 'g? te d t as the particui'ir's (~f c.i':E?fen~f':~· ·cJ~Z1-rii""~md una-~1b:i.guc-usly7 inf0r:n!3d the ar pr.ill.ant;.~pf : tho :

Qf{'Jl;t(:~ J ,. H1t:1 t t11~ e: $ t0Qd • ob.H'{:'Q d with; Having exa11ined the p.::i:dicuht:c·s 1 ~11y i:;;.;-tisfac·~icn :i.sr -~h.,,t tho said pirticulars, 11ake na '.flistske ~ thut they ::,re c,;c; ~uaUy t:-..lkin 1.j 213,_::u_t. the offrmce cf causinc lJudily inju:t'h thrr.ugh Ci.:l:r.eless dri-ainr,; an offence\ well covered by -s:r,ction 4:L, r;;·:f. t,{le, ~.<;;.t..c. •••W:\.'th 1 s1,1.e.l;l; ~:t~·'flbicuous particulcirs 1 the appellc,r.t c,,uld net hdve .. 4nt·e:r--tairrn-d any a -,bigui ty~ as to what he was 1:einf cha:'gcd wj i h~ and he could not th-.iroforc be said. to hav<f· beln pejudicc ·l.~ If as~_is~~?c~ "in 8-o co~cluaing 1 "wel'._e :. needed, the cnse of J;.BDUL ~.BM3b1., S.~ SfBlffi Vso E (1958 )_ }l'.-•i :Ld7 j • is rec:dily available fer rflferrenc2n In this cas\.i 1 c:. wrc,ng section had been cited 7 but sinc6 th,e, port:i._9t1-.lar::;.Gf. -~'fence wero adquate to infor-n th1J appolhnt 7 of the ... of:fiince. 1-ii th wliich he Weis chc1rged 1 the court held thct the!'e hi1d :nc~ been 1 any fe1:::lu. re of justice: a.nd th&t the defect Wf'.s curable, cnd:i1' th.: l'ClP.VEan-t Cri11inal Fruc-:-clure Code pr.ovisionso ~imilo~y j:n });,lJDI H.1-AISI Vu-d Re (19.67) ··Hn Co Do No., .2li 111\ITHONY Vr,:; Ro (1971) Ho C.,D,, No~ '. ~7 i·~ ·has independently bee~ heldi th3t, whore t~~ f6~tickl6rs cf offeac6~ set out all· the ingredients of the cffence 1 ,·che

c.:cct1s~d ca.mot be said tor.eve l, ..,, 1 · ;pl'"'1,~71dica·d 0 ·" F:rom -~h/J above~ j_-t b;:;hcvGar ;:na tc: sa.y, as di~ thri ~eLlrne~ State ktto~ney 1 thut the da!cct in the charge was o~ nq piojudiciDl effact 7 and Seotinn 346 ~f ·tho Cri'Dinal Frccedul'e Cc-do Cap 20 1 , was a-,rniJ_•30le. to cUl'i-l tho sc:1moo N~xt, co:ncs the :i..ssue 'of'. an aJ..nernative ·.;:1-~•di:cto .. The tri~'.i magi~,trcde 7 having founc. 1 -~ha_t. tb.0 r~ .was nr:- dep fad"•:.,t,lc and sustairi-abie evidencG 7 to Gh0•1 that 7 the -::cnplainant did su.ffc.:r. 'bodily injury· as a rr-> sul -t of th•:1 all0.r0d carelGss drj_ving 1 1L'J.ich he had mistakenly thcUf.ht fell .. und<Jl' so c"tcion 42(1) ( c) of tho L1ct 1 ccnvided the app_!311ant und':lr s"2ction 42(:L)(a) c-.f_ the. lict - ]cckloss diri-ving, al though th,:, arpollant. was net charred with i t.i. Evan assurn-ifig·1 . th!3;t section 42(,1)(0) ,cited :i_J1: -t:ne ,chorge 7 :~·rn!'·J the ri{.::ht· one, an· a} te:rnativo v·<!rdid und<1.: 42{1)(a) of thsi i,ctt· would have, been imP.rope-1'o. _This is l_.0ca4s<1 7 in the ctbsfmc.G of .;:t:1tutory provis-ions, it is no.t fer th0 conrt, :·te: spf.cuJ.atc, thnt thJ lagislaturr. sh0uld have proyidl3d for such a cilte:;:ncltits ve:rciict~ c'.nc1 ttc11 ofore ·proceed 1 · to act Jn. -thf.l, linG of cu:c specUli-,tic,ns 7-· seccndly nc: whGrP, is the • -' offence )-l-lder' section 42(1)(a).

sai~' to be a -ninor off,rnce 9 to the ,: offenc~ imper sGoti,_an 42(} <c) of .the ;\:::t" It· is tc be emphasized, · tho t 7 ,~hen the pros-s cuticnr d'3 cidr,o s -~o prefer .:'.i ch2r1;a r it must be sure 1 as, to w.hich 1H:n or. su·'.,sn o-i;iun of ·the sGction, where the offended s<: c~•i(_,np th:-- :U['h·. subsc ctic-ns 7 ·creat· s · many c; several 0 ofienc_esr is coverod by the evidirncw· they hi.:lve; and not expose the court!.s .. · :'_q_tiorso 'F'im1+iY~ the le,r1ned St,,te- i,tt0rr.J3Y, ur1..3d th::•ti ~he ~-boV'e • notwi~Jhst,opdinc, thG evid~nc~ adduecdv fell sr..:.:'.>rt of cst;,;blishing, -the offence q.isclosnd by the. :i;:arti,:,ul,.:,:::-s cf offcncco The avideilce wa havo 9 is th.qt on the 11/2/1977~. the· cc11plaL1~nt~ who was. cyclin{ alcnr Nyerl'lre Ro::1d~ fell off his bicyo:;_ec, 1.rh,1 ccmplr,in,mt 1 who clai'!)~d tc hc..vo-b,:ian injur']d 7 as 1a r:Jsult theracf, alletee:i 7 'he. . Wcls n<;>ck-.c1. :by th~ appclJ;antr tl;t<-'n drivinf 1:, -noto:r vdhcle behind •him;· thr9):l{;h:_q,:::relc:,ss drivina,, Th,~ c.oppc.Lla::it denies all thisc; ·· .. : · o()oo•·,,O ·/"' ..)r, ,·: 3 While the evidence, is loud to tho eff '-' ct, th,.-. t the c,-11plbinant fell off his bicycle, thf3 Fl' .. 3 'tt11:tt:i~ri,dl to shcn ~Jc,dily injuxy, thcugh duly filled, t0 show the ndtu.ro of the injuriGs, is neither sicned by the Fnlico Officer who issued it, hc~ing it wus

issued by a Felice Officar 1 nor siLned by the doctorf ·nor officially stampod. The triGl magistrdte rej'!ct~d it. I· think he was so cnti tl~d, as unsirn.gd ,;s it is any mischievcus :nind, cculd h .. vc filled it to a.uit his convi:oi0nco. It is only, the cc,:ni;loi.'iant's 0rc,l evidence, that showed how h0 had suffor,;d bruis':ls on the shnuld•u, lr>ft side of the hP.ad, ,n the hands, and ccnsequently adni ttcd to hosr·~tal for seven days. Evon if, I were prepc.1rl'lcl to 1;icc0.pt this, in 11aking my own findings whore I must, th!'! crucial issu..: wc,uld still be whether, tho c0mplainc,nt suffcr~d this 1 as a r<:'lsul t of carclr.ssncss 1 c-n th~ part of the driv0r - the appallant. Th~ co~plainant, did tell the court, that th8 arpollc,nt, nockf!d hi:n fr('m b-2hinde This in i tsclf, wculd not a11eunt tc, n·,cligence on thr part of tho ni;pellant. It has been, rightly he.lei in F.. Vs. Wi!LLLCE (1958J 'EiiC.b, th-it <'i convicti0n in this type of offonce, cannc,t b~ fcund on more· f-sct of collision, but must b~ built on a finding of f3ct, b3sed 0n evidence adtuced, th3t the drivar did by omissi0n or so11e act, dtiv~ ncrlirently. We e.xpA ct a driw1r, to exercise th'! degrl:!e of .,_, re and attenticm, which a reasc,1ably prudent driver wr.u.ld exerci~,:i, and any driver, who overtly and faul tly, departs frc'.'!l the stc,rid2rd of driving expected of a prudent driver, is

negligent. It is the lnw1 thut to suprort conviction fault on the p~rt of the accusedf is an essential element. ~ KHllLIF Vs R. (1973( E~ 4678 In this casG, P.W.l Geor[,e Fuleence testified, thc:t the co:nrloinant over toc-k the appellnnt' s bus, baf,)rci he fell in front of the hua. .And al thc:Llfht F.W.2 PC. Julius told thr1 court that driver - appellc:.nt, ,md the ccnplo incmt where :noving in the oppcsi te direction, whab the colision occurred, his sketch plan, is ccnsistent, with the testimcny of the cc'Tlplaincmt and P.W.,l. P.w.2 further told the court, thot the appellan1 was ever tdking aothJr vehicle, and on this there is no challenfe• This evidence is rci::!s(,nable, as it obviously explains why the appellani W,:., s 16 fen t, fro11 the 1 left side edge cf the rc.,.d. Since this 11 16 Ft~" point, frc•11 the ccfg,e of the 10ft side of the road, was alsc, a 1)cint cf impc.1ct, and as the Nyerere Road~lcingc ~moja jun,-·hoq intc, ·which the cn11pl&inant was to turn, was according to 1he sketch plan,' still over 70 F!:.et away, the co11plainant's presence at the roint ·Jf impact, cannot b~ oxplain8d by his prot.ess, to turn rie:ht, as pit distance still to ba cover·~d, it was ;'rcmatur<' so to do~ It rc:n.Hns tc, be ccnluded, that th<-! co11plainant prossnco there, can only ·.,c cxpl.::.in!:!d ·by P. W.l' s evidsnco, tht-:t the c.a1_Plain,;nt was ovi::.t-tnkint:

thl'l appellants v~hiclo which was._per P. w. 2, was al'$O ov0ri.;-,king another vehicle. Th':1 e0mplainant' s -\erMri ty and rcishnrns to ever take a vehicle, which was ov0rtaking ar.0ther, was obv:icusly an adventure to d()ath, and chanc('.JS seem, he was nocked whil·_J in this Exercise. The eo-nplc1inant was the author of the Bv-2nts, that be fell hi11. In such circumstances, it is net e&_e;r,• to appo:rtion foul t or nerligence, upon the appellant wi th(.:ut dr-ing injusticeo The evidence shows ther,1fore, that there was nr, n':1€,~ligence, on thJ pl'.\rt of the appellant. The appeal is allowGd, convicticn quashed and sentences and disqualifi- cation order set aside. ~elivered this 4th day of October, 19780 "' ._ r-,~~r ~TI JUDGE'· HIGH COUBT 'Mi-iANZI.~ 4TH OCTOBER, l2.1§.•