19710617 TZCA Dar es Salaam

IN THE HIGli OOURT OF TANZiu'lIA AT DAR ES SALAA.l! High Court Criminal Appeal No. 282 of 1970 Original Criminal ¢ase No. 140 or· 1969 of the District Court of S1ngida District at Singida before J. A,. l?. tfa.oe, Esquire, District Mag.istrate versus

THE REPUBLIC RESPONDOO Charge: Count .~ • Soliciting a bribe contrary to section 3 (1) and (5) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Ordinanoe. Count 2 Corrupt transaction with agents ~d. contrary to section 5 (1). and (5) (a) of tn.e Prevention of Corruption Count 5. Ord inane~, Cap. 400 of the Laws . But acq~tted. on Count 2. rJJJJDMENT MAKA:ME J. The appellant, who ,va.s. a primary court magistrate at the Singida. Urban Primary Court., was charged on one count of soliciting a bribe and. two counts of corrupt transa,ction. Me was acquittea; on the count of reeeiving a bribe of Sts. 20/- because the trial ~istrate was not satisfied that the charge was proved, and convicted on the other two counts, one of soliciting a bribe and another one of corruptly receiving Ste. 180/-. '1'.he evidence against the appellant was overwhelming and. the trial District Jff.agistrate could not but convict. There was evidence which the trial magistrate accepted that P .W .2 appeared before the appell.ant on a charge of stealing cattle. rl'h:e appellant refused. to release him on bail notwithstanding the of.fer o:f PYL.1 to stand surety for P. W. 2, to whom P.w .1 was related,~ Later st a pombe shop the appellant approached P. W.1 and asked. him if he was still keen on having P ..W~2 released on bail. On p. w. • 1··. ' s.aY..ing ~e wa.·s, the .appellant told . h.. im nMkor:.o mtupu haurambw1''

(literally "An empty hand cannot be l1oked11 ) , and the conversation led to P.W .. 1 later giving the appellant first SJs, 20/- (which the trial magistrate did not believe) and then. Shs, 200/-, so that P,W.2 migh.t be released on bail end also not be sentenced to three years and twenty four strokes. According to P. W.1 he gave Shs 200/- to the appellant after he had reported to the police, and when the appellant took the S'rs . 200/- l1e gave back to P.W ..1 Shs. 20/- because he said he took into account the Sts .. 20/- P,VL1 had earlier given to him. The appellant received the money on a path near his court and two police officers arrested him shortly afterwards. A civilian, Shabani Tora.him., was present when the appe1 lan t was searched and found with Srs ~ 180/-. The appellant denied receiving money from l?.W.1 and contended that t..he first time he saw the money it was in a police ofticerfs hands at the police stat.ion, after the police advanced on him when he was on his way to a private doctor. The trial magistrate considered the evidence and crune to the conclusion that he could safely rely on the prosecution witnesses as being straightforward• . I cannot say he was wrong. In his long 28 pomt petition the appellant merely .chEJ.lenged the trial :magistrate's findings of fa.ct and alleged. that most of the prosecution witnesses had grudges against him.. I ,am not

impressed by the grounds, wh !ch do not raise aey ma.tters of real substance. After perusing the record r. am satisf.ied, and so certify, that this appeal has been lodged without any suffio:ien t ground of complaint, and it is accordingly summarily rejected. Apparently due to an oversight the trial magistrate made no order regarding the Sls .. 180/-. I order that the money be returned to P, VL.1, Muna Jikilo. (Sgd.) L. M. MAKA.ME. Dar es Sals,a:m. l'lth June, 1971.