19880311 TZCA Dar es Salaam

,,.

IN THE COURT OF AFPEAL OF TANZANIA l\.T DODOMA -. (£Q~ g ~r-JE 9 J .A °2 KI§.!_JP._~ ;r.J.~, 2 And Oiv][ill 2 J •A.) CRIMINJII, APPEAL NO. 34 OF 1983 B.9287 D/C CHACHA ELIAS. 1>0000• APPELLANT

VERSUS THE. REPUBLIC •. • • 0 0 0 0 0 RESPONDENT (Appeal from the conviction and sentence of the High Court of Tanzania at Dodoma) (Maina, J.) dated the 28th day.,of October, 1982 in Criminal Appeal No. 30 of 1982 JUDGT'IENT OF THE CDURT This is a second appeal. Appellant wc:s charged in the District Court of Mpwapwa of corrupt transaction. He appealed. to the High Court and the appeal was dismissed. It is alle5ed by the prosecution that appellant demanded some·1: bribe from one Yahya Said whom he had arreste" for a trumped up offonce of being a rogue and vagabond. Ultimat•1ly the bribe got to the appellant in the circum5tances of a tr~,p and he wc1s caught red hi:mded with marked money. The appella.,1t f5cJV€ his evidence thnt the money found on him was his own money that one f~bd i Kandoro the owner of the Bar where the trap was heldp o·:,,red him. Appellant GXpla:ined j the circumstances th.2-t led .to his money being with the Bar 0vmer and he called witnesses to show that on the previous day at the same Bar he paid ;. 100/r for a beer of shs. 20/- 8nd the Barmaid had I no change of shs. 60/- which was reserved, till tb.G followint; doy, when he went to retrieve it and. was caught in th,'" trap. This story of the appellant t~ two courts below did not fir..d credible and· so rejected it as ati cmtright lie. The story of -~he prosecution was believed and. re<Jsons were g~.

.vem for its be.lie:[. Mr. Mbezi learnea counsc:. for the appella.. • , pened his ad.dress before us by first owning that the· appellant was his former client but that 1.n thii: appeal he had no •instructions from •••ooooo/2 / • - 2:: - him, he received instructions to defend him from the Court recistry and he- then applied. beforG us f>r leave to appeal under rule 8 and 44 of the Court of Appeal Rules - on a point of law. Leave to appeal was immediately granted though it was not.clear to us on what point of law leave was sought but we- hbped. it would'bc forthcoming in due course. The argument of Mr. lfbezi centred on the two versions of the story that of recGiving corr1-1ptly and the story that it was money owed which was being handed back to the appellant, the owner. He submitted the prosecution witnesses PoW.3 Yabya and P.W.6 Abdi Kandoro who deposed on this tr::msaction ought then to be individually. corroborated. because they were a.ccompl ices and further because P. W.3 was a person with an interest- o·fihis own to serve, the absence of corroboration he continued., was non-compliance with the r@<,tuirements of the law. Though ecrutiny of facts is net our concern in a second appeal we did neverthel~ss peep in.to the evidence to find out whetf1er the two witnesse11 named hap assurriei.1 the charc:JCter of accomplices simply by P .W .3 saying that the bribe was demanded

from him and wDs eventually given to appellant tinder police supervision and P,vr.6 l\eing a relat:{.ve and a host of P.W .3 whose story may hove some variations though not mate:rinl to that of P.W.3 these we have carefully considered and we aro of the view that they were not accomplices 9 nor was P.We3 a peX'9on with ·an interest to serve and therefore the question of corrol>ration· does not arise. In the result WG dismiss ·this appeal as lacking in a. point of law for consideration., DATED at DODOM.f\. this 11th da-y of March~ 1988 • . L • M. M.AKAME JUE ;TICE OF APIE.AL. -►-~ • o o o o o o o o o o o/3