19960724 TZHC Dar es Salaam

IN 'l'HE HIGH COU~ OF TA)IZJ.NIA ~1 D:+i. ES r:cSl~•-' . 1'PP3LL4Tt JURISDicrtO>I <ti> .9~ftCt.SB·'-~~.,J.W (.OJUGI~ CJUJ4XNAl, APP ~iJ f' ~ - 7 fJe I>Ist'iU~ OOUirl OF Y.IS.ARAWE l)lQtitraf A; ~ - enDUNA.t, et.SE 10.24 of 1994 ot ~ z 1Rl1Ultf ~ sa;u: .7/wltlI •·• ••••.•• -• .......... , I • • • • • • " • • ,. ..... --• .. I,.....-- ~ ' (~~ Y.C:l&VJ MOlfAluia WA!«JlLI • , mmms •·•... •••••••• .......... ~ (()R!GJW, ~ In. the O.l"igiiia1 cu• filed iJI tile pri.11&1'1 co1Ut, •-•«--- _,. joJ.atl.1 ~ba,g.tl vitil .n.~,p1q ~ _ J ' t i . , ~ • .., • • ,...i W. '-'!~. ~~' ~iPW 'to Seetioa ~6S of t)la l ~ Cocle., !a97 . . . ~ convict$« en th• first c ~ but a.e,uittKlf __ -t he a.oo•« . . . .___. ~ • • with the ~indil\g on the second count, a,,.1Yan~ til~ • • .,,..r ."9: tM ,,. J>J.atri¢ _~Qrt, Besid•• ckal1~ngin& rupad•J\t••r.• tu otte.r,,<=~81.iag e-pJMJllant few. t•d the trial ~---,- court ~ .,. * • maki.11.g • filldinJ aa th _.uppo.s~d thi.rd eo1mt ot tbi'eateun1 t• 1411.t- n. le.arned •nel.li.ato Diatrt.ct Magiotret• l.isJliN44 the •,peai,, Bowfffl"• Ila .aukt-itutec.t the c:Oltviett-n of tke oftace ot tmlawf-1 ~nliJl•zrat CoQt7U7 to Secti~ 2', ot tlte P•nal Code f~ tut ot IC1dnappl~. A.en~ Appell.Mt is not satisti'ed. with tlti:s find.i».g hee•• tb a,,..i. ,,..._t IU.e sr~ ot appeal a¥'• the a.a.me N tboJH pi-eaentecl 1a tq tf.N..t. appell•t:• c~. J:.e he did in th• !ir1t appeal,

what the •PP•llant i• • ~ ta that respondents oupt to have bt)e'll eonvict.cl o! at.aling ad. ot tht ... a • -euppoae4 count ot threatening to kill. W'ith r~apect both lower courts were quite right in nmli~ the Nsponde~ts aot guilty of the OO\Ql.t of atealing. There is no evidence at all to pro•c thvt the •ll.1ged mi1SGing Shl.55.000/= vere .-telen by the reapon4ents. The sole eye witneea tor tii. proseeuticm azid whoa appellant corttend4 to be his wife clearl.7 told \lle Cb\U't that ehe oio not know who stole the said amount of money. What th• vitnesa vas sure of is the aissing ~f the .s~d AJIQunt of money. It i4 ineonceiYable that IM1'1 eO\l.J"t would.have convicted the respondent• c,n auch eridenc-. Similarl7 Appellant's contentioa thiit respondents ought to have been eonvicted of the supposed oftenct of thr.eatening to kill is tmS\lpporieble. TM co~Jlaint tiled in the trial p:rima.ry court consists of two allegationd vhieh are st,ealing end kidnapping. There is no such_allegation.as rea;,on◄ent1S ·thz-eat('JIU'S t.. 1,u.1 t.h9 •?F•l~...t,. Not only tbat evea in hi.e •-csumon; ~ .• . the trial prwry ecurt appelleAt Jt•ver .testified. that respo!lClenta. . t.!&rme!ll,liMl to kill him. The first timo thic i!ller;ation is rai:aed i• in th& rumoi-.andUJD 0£ appea1 filed in the Di.etrict Court. 'l'hu aa tar u the ~ d a of thia eaae are col'lcerned appellent 1s eont•ntion t~t

rqpondents thr•atoud to kill hi• is a . ~ fantacy.. All regards tbo original eow:it o! kidnaJlping with respect the first appall.st. cc,un ·waa rit:ht in not upllolding the convicticn. The offence · of kiduppug '8 defined und~r section 24.5of the Penal Code is l'lot support..41 by the evidence on record. The victim 9t the alleged kif::pping ill this case waa, at the ilateri~l time, aged 26 years whereas thee.!,quirec tbE-t ehe ought to have b~n Wider the age of 16 years. But with even gr-.ater r~ct;the lN.rned appellate magistrate was wrong in substituting a conviction f'orf~:,g~ent Contrru-y to Section 253 of the Ponal Code. In ber evicenc~ f.JM2 never complltined that respondents forc~d-her te accom~y them. On the eontrsr:, a.tter sht had eomplGined cf how appellant. was mistr~ating her, she appeared to be ready and willing to leaYa with the respondent~ who included her father. 31\d her brothers. As a whole the ·evidence on record did not disclose any offence of which any of the respondents could have b~en convicted. Thia appeal is therefore dismissed. And invoking my revisional power• I 4ue.sh the substituted conviction of wro,1gful confinement and set aside the / ••.•• j .' - aentene, of tine of Sbs.500/~ imposed 01\ each respondent. Similarl7/ the order of c~ponsation of Shs.5,000/:s which respondents bad to pay the api,ellant is S.t aside. ResponC:ente sho1.1ld be refunded of the said finea a~d compensation. ' '..__ .\ -~\ \ ! C ._. . H.-A. MS'OMI ...· I .JUDGE 2'+/?M Appellent: :Present R ~ s : Present. I .