19881221 TZHC Dar es Salaam2

~"--, ·~---k b <::, \"' {_ L0:>1<'&--,-7~ nr THE IIIGI:I COURT OF TlllfZtJU.ti. AT DAR ·ES SliLMJi APPELLATE JUnISDICTI.ON IIIGH COITRT CRI}ffifiJ., AfPEAL Np~115 ·OF 1988 (l!'rao orig~ C:rioinnl. Caso No.56 of: 1988 of ·tho Distriot Cou.rl of iG.looboro- Dis:triot et Kilonboro) \ 11.ZIZI M.J{JJ30NGO •• •••• ·••·•• ................... '.I •. "•• i> • • li.J,'?EL!Ji.NT · ( Original .l'.ccuscd) .vorsus TEE UNITED REPUBLIC, • • • • • • • • • , • , • • • ,. , • ,, • • • • ... , •• • • • • •, RESPONDE1'111 (Origino:i. Prosecutor) .. JUDGMENT MA.PIGAN0 1 -t•, 'lho o.ppellt>.nt Azizi Mohc10od Knbotl.t,"'<l was 001tviotod by tho. District Court of I<ilot1'bero at Ifakara of obWn:i:nc nonay by fnlso pretence contra.rtJ to section 302 of the Po?Ull Code, in n ~oiit ci...,tod Juno 22, 1988• Ho was sontonood to ioprisonoont for twelve oonths ~ o:rdorod. to :rostoro a sun of. sb.a.200/-:- to tho oonplainont Saidi Goorgo l3onso11 (M). He wo.s oggTiavod ey tho conviction o.nd tho punislmont on sovorol. gro,mds• Pl-11 's rolativa was ohargod with a. traffic offonoo cwd was hold on ror.m.nd ponding the trial of tho en.so• On April, ~8, 19801 at about 11.15 a.o. Pt-11 r.pPl'()Mhod tho a.ppollo.nt o.t tho Ifokarn CCM Brnnch Ofi':ioo whoro . . the appollMt WD.S enployed as a. bro.n.oh socrota.:cy'. Pt·ll •s intention was to obto.in a lotter of rocomond.ation :froo tho appollruit to sond to Cou:rt in oroer to bail out .his rolativo. li.ccord.ing. to PrTl, tho a.ppolln.nt dooandod soo.'200/-: "in ooool'dnnoe With tho rules of CCM".. in tho prosonoo of. ~.t::1.rthc Mwai.jonga (PYT2).. Pt·11 roluctnntly ga.vo hio, tho nonoy, thinking that tho appollont would issuo a. rooeipt for tho noncy or roooro dew tho p~1ont on tho lottor.. The a.ppollont did not issue DrJY roo0.ipt and tho lottor did not bcm- aiv su.ah note• On his we,N" to tho court Pl·Tl not with Homan Gcpati (Pv14), n. prinn.ry court oossongort and relo.tod to 1'1'14 llha.t had takon plaoo• 'l'ho two than wont to soo tho o.ppollant who on.intc.:b100. ~mt such pa;;ncnts . woro 11no:ri::inl" • PtT4 thon a.c:1.vis od. tho coopln.i.nc.1.nt to "tako it'. on.sy"• . A polico . dotoctivo who ovorhon.rd tho conversation botwoon Pvll o.nd PvT4 took up tho raatter nncl want to intor,:ogato tho appellant. PWl was nstonishod to hoar the appellant d.O?¢ng thn.t ho h...".d rcooivad tho noney.. rv12•s cvid8ll.Oo was sioilnr. Sho Mded tho.t prcvi~lY pooplo were pcyi.tlg shs.,o/-: for such lottors. /~ for PYT4t 'ho deniad that ho went to sco tho appolltmt om that he oovisod PWl to tclco it oasy. Tho police doteotivo who a l l ~ intervwed ~ uot--.ec"'ll oo. to givo ovid01100 in court. In his dof'onoe tho a.ppclln11t donicd dooDnding at\Y oonoy fro□ PWl a.nc1, of course, Jio al.eo doniod that he had roocivccl tho nt10U11t. Tho record shows th;;i:t on M,.7 301 1988'. aftor ~-ro wi tnassos hnd &i vo11 eviclonoo on tho side, of - 2 - -1.!.lo prosooutio11, tho appellant r.md.o an n,ppliot,,tiou t.1:+o,t tho oasa be hen.rd by another r.1i:i.e,i.str.:i.to, 011 tho 13TOund that tho r:ic{:.i.strato w~o wns t:r;ying' tho ce.so was intorf'o~ 1t: with his qu.ostions... 11 Thnt application was rojootoc.l out of ·hand in tho following toms: itAocusod pri'.l.yor rcjootod c.nd trial to 0011.tinuo".- JU'ld. indoed tho triDJ. contiltuad. In tho 011d, D.S nlroady i'lontionod, tho trial t10[."1.strn.to oonvictod tho appellant 0f tho offonoo. Ho stated· in his judcna11t tha.t ho wns. inprcssod by !'I'll. a.nc1. PW2.- Ho nlso stn.tod thc.t tho fa.ct that PIH ~ae overheard by a police detective gruobling oddod noro woiBht to tho prose- . . "t . . cution on.so. Ho rocallodt and took /t into his co11.Sidoratia11., cobplaints ho ha.d. JJ.ioscli roooi vod to tho o:ffoott- tb..t\t peoplo hnd boon oado to pey- n. fco of shs.50/-:- for such letters o:f'_ r®otu:1ondo:'ci01i. Mr. Knshunhlgt.l., lea.mod oovocato, o.rguod· tho appCDJ. on bohal.f of tho 'o.ppoll~t; Mr+ Chizo.1 lon.rncd, stc......to n.ttorncy1 appoc..red for the Ropublio/ Respondent. Dcnlil1.g with tho oontro.J. points a.s to whether tho appellant nado any doorind for the payt1ont of nonoy ruJ.d. who th or an;r r.1011oy was rocoivod by hin, rnr. l{c.-,,shunbu{,,u suh:u.ttod tho.t it ucs unso£o for tho ·~:i:icl. mo.gist?'t',te to boliovo the nccount of Pl'TJ. and PU2 ill ·View of tho tostil.,01-cy- of Pv14 Which contradictod that account. Ho pointocl out, correctly, t!mt tho loo.med M."'!g'istrata did not n.dvert to tho~. ·: b ~ ~ of PIJ4 in his judgment. H~ sul:oi ttod that it wos inproper for tho 1-t".lgistra.to to to.Im into oonsidol't.'.tian . . 4,· "extraneous fncrtors of his o·wn Cll:perienee"• illtd he ohn:rged that it was wronc for the M,.".,f;is-trate to ovorrulo tho appollont •s objection to his continuing to try tho CC'.SC,. Ur~ Chizn; supported tho conviction, sn.ying :tli~t thoro wo.s sufficient beliow.ble ovidcnoo to susto.:i.11 it. In his opinion ·I.ho oagistro.to was ontitled to rofusc tho application for.tho trl'..llSfor of tho Be.so to another no.gistra.te,. Ho citoo tho dooi.sions in R v Sil1f.Jl (1934)1 EACli 110 and Royston v R 1953), 20 EA 147, but,. with rospoct, I hrwe found. tJ:i.osc decisions hnx~ 'liolpful. In r:r:, juc\:;-uont tho loa,rncd n~istratc wns on.ti tlod to his n.ssossuont of tho orcdi bility of tho ev.i..donoo of PWl c:mc1 ~12~ · But c e r t ~ ho wns Wrol'lff in his f:u~ling thn.t· a police c1otoctiVe h[l(,1 ~hO<.---.rd. PUl ooripla:i1une against the o.ppolln.11t. For one th:i.ng, the said clo-t·ootivo was not col.led as a.·witnoss 021d tho record is silo11t on wl-w his ovidtn.100 wns c1isponscd with by · tho prosecution. It was also wron.0 for tho oagistrate to bo influoncod by the stories ho h...1.d lloo.rd outside tho court n.bout tho prri..otioo of CCM officials· ch~ingnonot.."1.t'yfcos for issuing letters of rocor.~1oncl.:l.tion. Most ir.1po:t"tc.---...ntly, in ny view, thoro is substnnoo in tho a.ppollont's , , ~ .. couplo.:i.nt l'..gcinst tho ro:f'usaJ. of his appliot1.tion .to "GrO.nSfor tho cnso to Mother nnf,.,:i.strri.:'i;o. Tho appellant an,vo reason why ~-o w6J.1tod the en.so trGJ1Sfcrrocl., 3 - Ile in of.:foot so.iu. that tho lon.r11od naei,strato 't'Tc'..S not nffordine- hit!. suffioi0l1t opportuni t;r to cross-ocnr.tlno .tho prosecution wi tnesscs. , ,I • I . ,• Noodloss I to point out, tho appellant ho.cl o. locral ric;ht to. cross-&6nino . os.;._ If his oonpln.int wns truo, tl:on it was a vn..lid Ground tho wi tno~s for a tr · o:r of tho case. 1!10 len.rned oa.,:I1strato tu.mod down ltho o.pplioc.tion ·d ho did so sui:mo.rl.ly. Ile did not doey that ho had. undul.3 intorforod uith the o.ppollunt's cross-ax:anination a.ncl ho did not stato Ol\Y reason wlw ho rofusoc.l the applic.:i.tion. It rru.st bo stressed that tho first .~V of ri. nae-ism.to io to o.cloinister justiooa Ilia second duty is to sn:bis::i..""y tho parsons appearing bof oro hin Jlilmt ho has a&:iinistorod justice. Pa:tienco n.nd inpn.rtinl.-i ty nro ossontiol to fulfil those clutios. Thero is no doubt that sonotiocs it is nooossa:r;r for bin to interpose in order to onsuro a fair trial• But ho oust ax:oroiso that dis6rotio11 fm.rly. Ile shotilcl not appear to Bhow .favour or disfavour to ·ney of the parties. IIo sltouJ.<.1 onc.leavour to n.void Bivine o. justi.fia.blo cuuso for conplaint tho.t he h~ nndo up his ra:thd 41 , I ~"Too that in this oooc tho lon.rnod r.mgistrato should have disquruifioc.1 hinself in order to Dako jtiot:Lco bo soon to bo done. In tho oi.rouctsta.nces 1 I f'ool that it. will bo uiwnfo to lot. tho conviction stn.11d., J1.0oordil1g]i, tho c.ppon.l is oJ.lowcd n.ncl tho 0011Viction is quo.shod. 'Ille sontonoo DJ.10. tho orclor for conpcnsation a.re sot nsido and tho D..ppollnnt is to bo sot o.t libo~y forthwith if ho is not othorwiso lrnd'ully dotm.nod• ~-1 •.J,.(q I OJI·-" :.___.L-"...:.;...-.- ___ (D. P.J/Ill.PIGLI.NO) JUDGE 21 /12/19D8.