19950523 TZCA Dar es Salaam 1

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT D.\R ES 2.~~ ~ CRU1.U.";.L i'.PPEAL NO, 67 OF 1994 rl u J, APPELLAN'l' .. n THE REPUBLIC. • RE.;PONDENT (AppEal from the r,,2cj_sio1° o~ t'.1e High court of Tanzani~ at 0 1 salaam) ( Mack an i a ~ ) cli';ten the 28th nay of February-, 19~i,t in --··-~------ CrinJnal Sessions Case No- 29 of 1990 • The Higr \01..1 1:t ·:>f 'J'-·nz2nta si tt:Lng in T)ar es Salaam -, murder contrary to sec- ::'ion iS6 r.•f Le Per al Corle~ 1 He was sentencer'l ·to t1e.3th. From tl--.e conv'iction an,' sentence, he has appeale0 to this Court. f:l(s established from the evir'!ence on recorr,, the facts of ' the <.:ase are simple... They may be summariser'! as follows: The ·appellant:anr'! the aeceaserl lived ~t Goba, Kinon~oni nistrict within ·the'•ut~kir•t'i; of Dar es Sal~~!ll• The appellant was engagec, ·to guar0 the farm of one Michael Mushi ·.in ,which pine .. apple~ were grown. On 27.11.1988 at about 8' p.m. be:fore retiring to ·berl ~- the appellant· went around the faYm ··:to inspect 'l • ,.,. , _ ani1 ..e~~.ure t)1a\t ·the' tsc=!.CUri ty· pos'i'tion was i.n orr1.er.. In •'the ·. , · .._• ·4 l • •· . •· , It'. f t· . . . '! ' • · ·!'ri-urse of his rounr'ls ··in the farm/·the appellant saw the t•,. .,. . ' .. · ·~:~~a~w of a •movil"g obfec't~ On' approaching the objec,t, it 7.: . . ' .__ 2 ('.1lc-wnen or: .:h: er"?,2lL3r:t that it was a rnan who was then

running away. Th,) .Jpp2llan t p(~rsuerl the fh?eing perso:, shouting 11 thiefl thief". The f: 23ir:g thief who is i:he r.e<:e1;-1nerl in this case ::;topped and then an·ranceo towarns the app~1llan t holl"ling a knife in his han,:-1. The appellant hit ·che ri1.~ceasen with a ~tick which was wr€&ted from him (appell~nt) by the r1eceased. As the r'lecease<'.'l sti.ll persisb~n in anvancing towarr1s the ,i appellant, fearing for his life, the appellant slashed the <leceaseti with a panqa. The oeceaseo sustain en serious multiple r d-eep injuries over ;:he shoulners an~ the back. While on the way to the hospi +:al the 11eceaser'l r'ien,, The appellant was arrested anrl cha. :gefi with the offence of murner. 1 At the tr.,~1 it was no~ in dispute that the appellant raused the ce.~rr. o.f th~ r1 ..:cea:.:.;r;,r,, The .issue was w"let.her .. t the appellant uruse~ the cieith uf thE:, tk,-:easeo with malice i , ,.aforethought. It was the appellant' t; c12:,:2r.ce tha-'.:: he killed . t the 6eceased ~~o was found at the farm steuling. The learned trial junge hal~ that the appellant user'l excessive fnrce in •'~ ~ •·r f I ~ ,.r inf lie ting several serious cut wounris on the neceasen. · appellnnt was thus convicte~ cf mur~er.· The f ' In this appeal, Miss Mjasiri, learned counsel from l the Tanzania Legal Corp~ration anvoeate~ for the appellant '~ an<l Mis'~ Chinguwile, learn20 State

Attorney appeared for the Re~ponnent, Republic~ The mem~raDdum cf appeal filed c•nta1ni . , ',. ,,, ·• ·-p•in·i rif com;..ilairto I t That is, that the· learned trial judge erre~ in reJ~,C:tin,:; the app&l.lant 1 :; nefence of ~elf defence. • : Z, T' •w,;,.• ,. j\l-.uino on this- po-int Mitli? .M.ja·d~i, with nistinct el~ence ' tha·t in the circumstances at length ~n the fact ·,, -. 0 (,- , •f th~ .ca~e~ ' If th~ . _.p,r~.g~~ti~i,. ha<! I ailed to- prove m~lice I 3 aforethought dgc1inst the appellant. That the appellant sh8ul,4 have been convlcte~ of the lessef offehCe of manslaughter and not murder because the appellant cnused the ·r'leath. of the decease• in the course of t'!efl~l'lrling h1rnself ( appall.ant) against the I threatening decease6/ Niss . l ! In support of ~er submission, Miss Mjasiri referre~ us I ~~ the case of IPAL,/ s/o IBRAHIM v R ( 1953) 20 EI.CA 300 on . the basis of which she said, the learned trial jut'!ge had res~lved tQ deci~e ,the instant case. Unfortunately, she lamente·d, the learne<i trial ju1ge came . I to the conclusion which, in her view was net in accord with the principles set out in that ca_se •. Miss HJasiri 1 also mac'e further reference to the Privy Council decision in the Australian case of SIGISMUND .PALMER ( 1971 ). AC 814 which was also _consir:lere<i iJy the learned t:rial judge. In· hP.r submission, she st:cesser'I th-:. t even

tht,ugh. the f'orrect prL,tiples on self ·1 ,:'.fer.~e as 1·estr1::,-::r1 in this _ease were taken tnto account in this case, the learn?~ trial jud~e faile~- to 0istinguish the circumstances of this case fr~m th.-se in the ,Palmer case. As a result, in the circurnstancel'; · •-£ the case,. sJ,a said, the trial jut1ge fell into the error r,f ,t'onvi~ting ~e appeilant of the offence of murder anr'I not , man~laughter. Miss Chinguwile, lear"ed state Attorney, who as already inoieated appeared for the Re.public conceded to the submission that the appellant. shoul<i have been convi9ted of manslaughter and nl'!)t murder.,. In view of the fact that in the evi~ence on J!ee111rd,_ the r.leceasen was found stealing from the· shamba which the appellant was guar~ing, the trial judge was wrong in reje~U'f t.he. pefence' of self aef ence, Mis,a Chinguwile contenried. She further argued thet in view of the provisions s'ection 18A ( 3) ' l 4 -of the Penal Code, the appellant having usen· more force than wa~ reasonably necessary, the appellant should have been ~-f"onv-ieterl .of manslaughter. From the recor~ of this case before 'the High Court and -the or~l, submissions/ before us at the hearing of this app~al, ·it· i-~ app-arent, that /the essential facts are not disputea. ,i The ~~in question .".p this appeal is whether the rlefence of j ·~ • • I •-self ·nefence cou1r1 jin the circumstances

of this case be . , sus-tain~c:,. On thi,f, Miss Chinguwile, the learnen State f Attorney-·while in-iagreernent with Miss Msajiri learned Counsel J ~r the appellant,ithat the appellant used excessive force, i I ,~,&tegorically as~rted that the trial "ju,1ge shouln · have f'tlilun<i / ,,the_ ~ppellant gyil ty of manslaughter because, she said, the ,defence of self !nefence could not be di·scounted. In orr1er ,to ..re.t;olve this isiue it is imp~rative first to have a clear pel!Ception of the law as it stanns in Tanzania today.. This, it ,_appears ,to us he learned trial junge sufficiently a~dressed I ' hi~·!;E:_lf on in -'the jut4gment in which reference was made to ,.A~~ti"'ns 18: 18A ann 18B of the Penal Cone. These are the provisions which,, it shouli:'l be -note~,' provine for circumstances hi which th( ric;::t to .-'lefend -ne self or one's property or others a~ainst any unlawful act -~f -~eizure., l'lestruction or ·vto·lence. H,-.wever_, the righ,t _,~f ('lefence provi.-!ei:'l for unr'ler sec·tion 18A ,~f the Penal Gtl~e is subject te the limitation~ set out unner ) Section 188 which provi~e~: 1~B: · ( 1) In ex~~ising the right of self -· r!efence -,ef prope·rty, a pers-,n shall be el'ltitled ~nly to use such reasonable force ag may be nec:ees,a-.-y for ;hat def'eN:.~ I 5 ( 2) . EY.e__ry pe.rsop shalt, be criminally r j ··.·rr:·..i: ~.·,: liabl,~- ·:r•\'°) \~ _fo.r any,

ofr:enc.e >f,; resultinf I!: ' • f.~,om ";('f~,SS-i-Ve -forte use1f in· _seJf.:~efonce or•in~rtefence of another . ,•:··:, ,or. in i:tef·t:!nce of propertyi <.~). · _A_~Y.- _person, who_. causes Cth<.'! ~_ea·th ,<>..f ,ar;i§'tti,er: as the result of :.,tr_, ·!· i.:: . ~x~~ssive .force·:used in defenci§~ ·,::; -~·-=-,··}r.:,' ~ .·,. .L . ··-. . • •: . · · shall.)?<:? ,guil t-y ~of: manslaughter, •. · · ;:· -~~ ~ p Ll F· f ;. • -: ,._. :~ :..:. ..... - . . , Apart from these, .cJear .statutory.prbvfsiohs" on the defence -_tf. ~:-~· . ~~:• . .I·~ . . . . ;'•" .~ ·,· -:t :.:•; .;-· _,. •~l: _ ,"·. -: •. •... ,: ' : i ~- :,e,~e._~c-~.}-~:-7-an.?,?nia, t3n0- :as-- cor.t~ct'ly point~·f· o~\. by the learner'! tria~ ju'"'g2, .<;:ase_lf,!w.isanother'important source • . · .',e:g::::::: :::si~,;: : :~:•: :s:.i::~::i:~::t:::c:nt::ri::::::c:In ·. '_.,:·· · ·• !t',•. •.:: .· . {'. ·.:l. j . . · -:-.-A·.,· , . '~}:;;;:·~:;;;~;ft:t:::m:::~,:A:h:p:::::!:~.· :~::f:::f::. in i .; ' : ~- e B ~~: I • .r. J •), • : .... j, -~i l . , ... ·a•~me~~ --~~~e c-.~I !_he a_ppella.nt before<a m;.igisfrafet-as a '\u!ltic:e 1 •'. .· : .., ,·:-~~ ,-~-~-a)~:~. .... ii' wa•,,. 1 ,_ • -· ·-=J - • . • /ft.f.'~e, :si;.~ '.:d <.\YS •c:!£ter- -th~'1.nc1rient _< a1.11.19ee). t~. _ou-i:,.flli!ldS .recent fa?~Ough fori:ithe" apt,'el'I'zfn_t' is" memory • •.: ~ t= - - -·, <t> ·;• ~ • , ·r '' ',~::,t,;;v::J~::::m::::e::,

::::::.::e·.:::~:~~-~~d, ._. . ~ .. ·. ~ '(:-' -~ . . •·· . ("": : ..1 -. : : .' . \· ' ", ... _Mara niliona kama; mtu amekaa•-· · • ·:,>I· ' -~:. . . . . . ,., : . Nikaanza kun:isc:>g~~~a na -kabla sij arnfikia · · · _- · .. . :~.. l' r . ·'· : - ~ hatua _3 hiv~ ak"1,anAa-,,kukimbia·:mimi ihuku ,. namfukuza _pa. kup_iga• kelele ·.ta rriwizi, ::! ·"'; rnwizi • CJ' ..... .., """' Mara. ._, -. ,. . .· katika . . ., .kufukuzana.:·huk"' . . . . ___ __ .lili~~~ta. !'lilgi.!tJ.EiS,aaf!mb~ ... . . , .•. ... ubavul"li · ma.roa,, ,marehc?mu . .L -mbili·)-0.;-... · '·'._ ·• ·, ................................--.____.-......,.,. fimb,_,.p~ :ak.atoa -,.~i~~ n~ k-u!S,twek~ m_kono,nt r,< 1 alininvang' ~1?YQ ;_, .... ,_._ · · ~ .-wi.---------~----~.... ' •• ' ......=4: ... t.i- O ; • fil ai1Jeiuhi Jµ~._.y~r :~ill~•ngu_'.°i:>'~-~#.1'".IMi•;: ,~p~li~~J-.. ,. ;~~" ha.l)~-~i :rftko110·: w-a-··kushotd r,;::;,!: 1 •iliku~~.-~-~: ,,P,~:J'~a -h.~~-·-:ki~b~~aj acifPlaa:= ··,:: t ... 5 ' - (2) Every person shall be ~riminallt lj~able for any offehce re~ultihg 'fio~ ~xcJsfuive foree usen in· ,:~..,·t. • T ~- _, . i~lf nef ric~ ot in .riefence of 0 ·a~'<s'ther of -!ti "1,efehce of property. ( 3 ). Any person who causes thG n.eath of ~nether: ~s th,e .. tes~l t Of _excessive:'fdfce used in nefenc:e~ ,' •· shall ·be 'guilty of ma_nsl~ughtet-J Apart from these clear statutory provisions on the

defenee 1• self rlefence in Tanzania, ann as correctly pointed ou.t; bV the learne~':-~r{~1 jwig.e, ca·~; la~ is· .anothe; ·;mlirtant .so~e 11 guinance in ric-ci~ing cases of this nature in Tanzani.e • . Iri ., o.· l,he 'in;;;~~t case, the _main eviaence fromW~;c~ ':·,'. ' ·,•, ' ' : . i: t \,~· sequeJ~ :. ·,_. eevents leading to the death of the deceaset:1 is reflected .11'1 J. e~tra' ju~t:i_a,l stateme~t o·~ -~~·~ appel{ant·. .,)11·• • . :· ·ii was ~ :·,."1 :: ;;; : . · r9aternent rnacte _by the a_ppellant be_fore a magistrlte as a ,justiee . • t e pe~c.,..~:;. ~-, 1'88, .5ix ,; ays :f ter the J.~Ji~ent ( 2:; .l1. t98tl, . Th~I was, to ou~- minds recent enough .f~~ .. ~he-· a.pf.~an.t• s_ :memory , ... 1 ' · ,., f'W~uat vivialy what hi,ppened be~ore .~~:~~~a:h ?f_. tre, ' . :.:.••ease~ . h. the stat.ement, the, _appella~! J•· .!m6f • others sSi~, " ..... Mara .nilioria ·kama rntu amekaa. · -Nika~nza,~~msog~le~ n~~ka~l~ sija~fikia i ,·, .i:J;,;hhtua · ,3. h!yi . akc3anza' kti~imbia' mirni huku :)[, ;r! j-:htmfukuz~: ~a· kupig~;, k~i~1e"-'t;~· 'inwizi t ,. r. ... ;: . . • ' 1·,,-: . . .. '. ( · 1. mwizi e,•o·• .."'. Mara katika kufukuzana huk~ ........·.. .!ili!flku·t·a;~n~~B,IDE!Q.a ,.: ... , .. ,... '. " •:finibp rnbi l i . '. ' .. ' ' ; l -: ~ .,, -· -· · · i· · : : ·' ' -.. -: -• .. · .,. , · · . £.1iavu.h!. mar~;Jll.o~f~h~:m.u·: ·~lt~gi.,Y.~hq'

am Y.0.C--;.,'.l?{'rn~•jna' .........~ '. ak:..~~ :'id.s(l -□..,, ~ 'n~· 'ku~iwek; rnilono~i . - Iii - : ·,.f:.· \,,,' ' ':;,!1;, " ✓ ' ' .. ' : ' ... " : '. ·.. .. ' -, _ .. ,· '. • • .. ·-' ' ·:: , " .:.:~-~~ji-Jer~h.fs,..J uu .:,y~~al i' ~ang~ / <. emphe.s.i• · ·' ·'- : ··'i$pi{ef ): ., >,K~~ :b~haitf:·111lc~nf$' :J; :ku~hoto .. ,. ·~~·i1i1k\;~a.:,il \;··~~·~ hi yyt 'k"att~ I'S:~ h~j aal'laa ~:.:·~'-'. ' ' : •· ..:~,;~'.:·'.\::· ' ' · .. ~ "·'.: t ~ 6 kunikata nj_limuwahi na kuanza kumkata kwa kuwa ~culikuv✓a giza sikujua nimemkata sehetnu gan_i kwani marehemu alikuwa anataka lrnnirudishia --?. •·" As already :tYeinted out, the learned trial judge accepted the evidence of the appellant as the only witne~s wh• could tell how the cut wounds ori the back of the dece~sed were inflicted. On this evidence and as .the .extra judicial statement extracted above shows, it is evident that the appellant while in pursuit of the fleeing deceased from the shamba as a suspected thief, inflicted two blows on the deceased by use ·of a stick. Thereafter, in the process 9_f the pursuit, accordins to the appellant's statement, the deceased having wrested the stick from the appellant held out a knife w:hij.e advancing to attaclc the appe~lant. In - these circumstances which 1.vere believed by the learned t~fal ,, judge as truthful, could the appellant avail himself of the right of self defence.

The learned trial judge rejected the defence of self defence when he said: "It could be said that the accused was , als~ entitled to arrest the deceased and that he was also entitled to use all _reasonable force to subdue the deceased. But it is now clear that .- the deceased did not resist the arrest thr(')ugh any violence. , In my view the two blows which the accused inflicted on the deceased were, unlawful and the deceased was -~ntitle~ to defend himself. In the eircumstances of this case the f;irst tw1~blews were a series.of unlawful attaeks on the deceased which we,re _, ..~ i 1. committed out of no legal justification.tt •.. /7 j I - 7 - From this it is apparent to us that the learned trial judge while accepttng and relying on the extra judicial statement Qf the ·appellant, the analysis and conclusion reached are based ,:'rJ parts of the statement and not the statement taken as a whole. This, Miss 1\1jasiri, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted was not proper •n the part of th_~- learned trial judge because it resulted in the rejection ,., ef the defence of self defence raised. Referring to the case r ,, of IPALALA s/• IBRAHIM v R (1953) 20 EACA 300 the learned I trial judge resolved to decide this case on the basis of the principles set cut in that case. Applying the principle in the IPALALA case to the circumstances of this case, the trial judg~·, held thci-c as

was the case in the IPALALA case the right :.) 'ef self defence was not established because no unlawful act had been establish:?d which from the beginning had posed imminent danger to the appellant. It should be noted that the circumstances and facts in the IPALALA case are different from those in the instant case. In the IPALALA case, the appellant killed the deceased who I at the time was struggling with the appellant's companion. The appellant hit the deceased from behind with a stick which he {appellant) had fetched. The blows caused grieveu&,. injury and death to the deceased. In defence, ,it was submitted that the appellant had acted in defence of his companien,'-.s person in • that the appellant had reasonably feared that the deceased was ~· ,.,_ attfmpting t~- kill his comp~nion. Dismissing the appeal, the 'le ·. ,urt If Appeal for Eastern Africa re-affirmed the principle lfi~t killi~g of an0iher is justifiable where an accused person .-,,. . alj~: wi,th~t.: "indictive feeling and believes, and has reason~ble , 1, · · hJ.S i~~s that afpers~9•s life is in imminent peril and that -L ~,fir is absjlutely necessary for the preservation•!' life. .... I - 7 From this it is apparen~ t• us that th• learne, trial. • ju~ge while_acc~pting and rely1~ on the extra judicial statement of the appellant, the analysia an~ -c.e,nclusion reached are based on parts of the statement an~ n&~

the statement ·taken as a whole. This, Miss Mjasiri, learned Cou.n$e1 for the spp,ellant submitted was not proper '?•n the part of the learnei1 tria~ ju~ge because it resulter1 in the rejection ~f the .. ~efence f"lf seif ~efence r,aiseeo Referring t~ the case ~f IPALALA s/o IB~HIM v R (1?53) C 20 EACA 300 the learner1 trial jur1ge ~esalve~ to ~eei~e this case ~1 •n the basis of the principles set fut ;1.n that ~a$e1 · Applying # the principle in the IPALALA case A tt\e .cirr-...um,stsne-es of this case, the trial ju~ge helr1 that as was the case 1• the·IPALALA . case the right of self oefe~ce was zr,, establi.she~- because no unlawful act han been establishen wttlth from the lleginning had posed imminent nanger to the appellant.. It shoulrl be note~ tha-t t:he..' ~ ,en,,!' facts in the DlALALA. case are r,iff~rent frem ~o~e i'n the _.-in'stant , case. In the ll?ALALA case, the appellant kille~ the deceasec\ who at the time was struggling with the appellant's ~ompanion. The appellant hit the n~cease~ from behin~ with a stick which he (appellant) har1 fetched. The blows caused grieveus injury and aeath to the ('iecease~. In defence, it was iyitten that the appell..ant had acten in defence •f his compan101'• person 1~ that the appellant hn~ reasonably feared that the ~eeease~ was ,. attempting to kill his compani~n. Dismissing the appeal., the Court ,of:·Appeal for Eastern Africa

re-affirmed the principle that killing of a~other is justifiabl~ where an aecuse~ person acts witM>ut vindictive feeling an~ believes, an~ ha• reascm.able grounrls -'that a person• s life is in imminent ..peril an~. that his action is absolutely necessary for the prese~~tion ~f life • • •·• ,/8 I f, 1:'.--· ~------.. . -~ w ·•--,..,__ ,r---.:.__ 8 ... ~ ~ ~..,._..:.... •• ••, •••~>~• ,P-:-~•~::::.= \:::~:-=-~.---··-The Court \.tt~·ther helr! ''that th,}re wos nb basis upori. which it CI\Ul,t,-,t" ·- .=_-~: •· t~.:~~:. -~ ·-~- .,~ ~-- ~. . ' .: ·-~;~~4~ - t:.. -- _,]:,e· infen;ec'i that the apt:,ellant honestly en~ rec1 sonably believed :·--:_~ ;;:;;....._-::;.: .. _ --""f-:-- --- ~~t~;,,,.~~at ..his .f riehcl I s life was in ·1mminent peril anrl that hie af'.'.tion '~~.-:·::~.:::..~- "'< ,_~_:::.._~~.;_ . ··-.---:::--:--.. \.._ ..:,;..,,.. :-::-::-~: .. ..in· hitting the neceast:~ on the· hea(i was absolutely necessary ...., ..~- l. .. . . . . ~-:-·:--\~- t==~=t~: ... : .... , ...~-~·y•;·',:J:~•,;_--,. fer the preserv;ation· [f life. In the instant case; however; . .... ~ - - .... :.. _::;--~::;.........;-::::Z- r~z~~-.. :1.th respect, w~ agr1~ with Miss Mja_siri, learne~ Counsel that¥:.:~~ ·:·~~-~~~ ::=~~:~~~~~~ circumstances -~r/ t1istinguishable. Here, as the evi(ience :::~~~~~~---··_::--~:~ \~::-::;::..:;::;~.~~~:~:.in the extra-judiciaf statement shows, unlike in the

IPALAT-,A _ -~.:~~~:.: :·=~-~ \ __,·----:-~·= c;'a~e, the. life 'of t1e appellant himself was .threate~ed and n<"t , ~;i:.: ·:··•··"7:=-~.-- ..-Q'f .events \ . :his compallion• s. - Ffrthermore, taking into account the- sequenc_e as reve;;i:,ie,1 ,.;.- ~a--_-::=-s~ .......~:,.-~·:· 7"-',:i,-~;:::?_.-;;;;;::.. ,· from the extra-ju~icial sb:1tement· as a.•·• . . "."""--,.....,,. r ........---.,....-....-:.: i:,,;.rtions ;;s the learr:P.r1 trial juA~e ~1d, _it . · .. -.. · ·-~...;,.~~~--". re-asunable ~ us that th2 life ·cf thP. appellant I 1 ----""'-'·::•~·:?.imminent pe ri 1 i.vl: [! n ~4 , • ,,, : . ·---.:~--=-~·::............__ \ \\ ~-----~--- ---·· -~ ~-··threatening -\::o c~tcck (him) ·.,i th .. kr,ife in hanr.., . ✓- .....si tuatioPl, we tl~i . k it was reasonable for "th8 ar,Jpellant to ·take; .-i . In... .that ~.:-- ·s0~n actir,n as 'Hs n~cessary for· the presen·ation ryf the nec,ased' ~ threatene!'3 · act of violence tP. hi.s ,. ~--,.,.._..:t"~:·:-·-\.~~.-~ that:-'.~i::z-- ... _.... _,__ ·r : . . _,~::.,.:;:._-_;·~-{ app~llant) bo~~- Fr~m this -p~int of view, - it seems to us " - . -.-·... _,,,,,..,. --~-- ~--==.~,-the flrst two ~l;o.ws inf licted ~n the oeceased by the appellant .. ·, ;:--'----'-=-were rather mere cif an action on the0part ef the· appellant. take~:·_=;,~·:·· .._.~~,.;_;,-· . . . ..... - .:.-,.-:--- . -..~_::,,-~- ... '"'·•..,.:-;.-.~--as. a

rea5onabl:. means t4' prevent the commission of theft· hy··· ···· ~.-.---·--·· _;_., · --·· ....-..:•:·-:--, --·-· . -, --- . ~-- ; • ...... -~--~~----- ... :;,:.s,,-;,.,~~- -::-:- · _,...,:.the nec-e a sed ? f. the sj'lpmba an<i not ..::=:;:~ : ·.:.:.:.:;_.~-. . as ·a series· c,f unlawful •. . ,,7,, .·=--::··-.::;;,..:.:-:;;?.~~/ .• • · · . - · •• - · ·-· "!•. :·:..::~-~:.:::-:. · ···al"".t.s ori the pe~t of the deceMer1 as the trial junge heln. · -... -._ 0 :; ,:·..... J . . ·---J/ ·-· ~ • ,. t· - '·--..... eviaence-l')f th case a:J a whole warrantei:, the invoc:ati~n .D! \ ---; -~.;_ __ - · .·.·_·:.....,;·.~-e-l:l:·-~~:fenae ~;ich is· enoµgh to t1ispose of this ~ppeal, ·we. 0·0 · · <_i>::·~.. · 9 t'lrawn to this case by the learneo Counsel for the app<=llant .. The learne~ trial jurlge reliet1 en the r,ecision of tha.t case fo::: the proposition of the law that if resistance excee~s the bounns of mere nefence ant'! prevention, the..~~fenr'ler.woulrl himself bccom,::? ar aggr~ssor. With respect; we thit'lk this is an overstab'!~- of th:,-, -law on S'?lf r.·:.ifence because in. rlecir'ling wh'3ther it was rE=>;eisor-ably n-<essary to h.=iva usct4 as much. force a~ was .~sen~ reqar~ must be har to ~11 the circumstarces of the ,case. That is, f!aCh casc:· ir, which s:xc~ssivl!' ~ort~ is user'li must b~ taken on its own inr'li~iAu~l ~erii ~n~ not !n ageharaiisen :basis. That

is the g€.:norai p.i:"ihc:::i1:d2. which was unr'IP.rscore(1 in the PALMER ~as0 in which the ~ef0nce ef ~elf r1efenca Wes extensively ni.scuss,~rl. Though as alrea,.y inr'Jicater1, thare was evlr'lerice in support •f self ~efence, it is no 9.ain~ay .,, that the force used ·J:_ was excessiw~. The post mortem examinatioh re~rt bears. this out. It.show~ that the dec~as~~ sustaine~ multiple neep cut In Tanzania, the law is clearly spell2~ •ut under the Penal Cone for a person who causes the neath of anoth~r as a result of ex~essive ~orce usen in ~etence~ For an offence committe~ un~er these circumstances, section 18B (3) of the P0r;al C@l~.2 provi~,]S for a conviction of marislaught€r. In the instar.t c.:as?, we c1gre-J with Miss Mjasiri, lEl'!rnad Counsel for the appellent supportPn by the learne~ Btate Attorney that having r•:':garrl to all the circ,umstances · of the case as a whole, th2 defGnce cf eelf ~efcr.ce was properly founne~. Weals• agree with both the L1nr,.,.::cl Couns-:::1 that as the appellar.t used ,.. great.::r r12gr<2e of force than w2s ,1e:::0ssary in the ci:wcumstane:es, .••• /1 ~ 10 ; he shoulrl have been founr1 guilty of ~anslaughter and not mur~er 1 Hae the learnen trial jur1ge consir1ererl the sequence of events leacHng to" the neath of the ~eceasen as a whole a'~-" 'not in phases, no ~oubt he wouln well have come to the same cor1ciusi'oni For these reasons,

w0 set asi~e the corviction for murcer' and sentence of ~eath. In substitution thereof, we enter a convict.ion for Manslaughter. Taking into account that relevant factors and circumstances of t~e case we sentence the appellant to five (5) years impri~onment effec~ive ·' :from the ~·ate of his. convi-c·tion b0fore the High Court. DATED AT DAR ES SALAAM THIS 23rd "DAY OF May, / R.H. KISANGA . JU;>TICE OF APPEAL A.M.A. OMAR

JUSTICE OF APPEAL D.Z. LUBUVA

JUSTICE OF APPEAL I certi;fy that this is a true copy of the original. ( M.rif;GALI J

DEPUTY REGISTRAR