NA TZCA Dar es Salaam2

A J..& «le IN THE; CGURT GF APPE;;:.._ OF TANZANIA CIVIL APP;:::.,l.1, :-~o. 27 OF 1987 BETWE.::N 1. NDUGU BASIL P. M~AMBA pp·- L NT- • ••• A ~LA ~ 2. THE HONo TH__; ATTORNt:Y-G:..:NEX.,1.L)

A N D NDUGU LEONS S. NG,\LAI . . . . . . . .. . KESPONDENT (Appeal from the Judgment of the High Court of Tanzania at Mo,ahi) (Sisya, J) dated the 19th day of Feb:,t1ary, 1987 in Electio9 Case No. 119 of ,. - 1985 ( JUi)GMENT OF THE C0URf - MUSTAFA, J .A.: The first appellant in thi~ appeal, Basil Pesambili Mramba, was the succe,s:=ul candidate in th: Parliamentary election in the Rom~o Constituency held on 27th October, 1985. He beat his opponent, Leans Silayo Ngalai, by 22,340 votes, r3ving polled 36,565 votes against Ngalai's 14,225 v<tes. Ngalai successfully petitioned. in the High Coui.:t: ( Si-:;ya, Jo) against the election of Mramba as a :i,emr.-er of Parliament. Tha High Court declarerl the ~l~ction of Mramba void and 'jl from that decision r•ir. :!cnba has appealed to this court.. The Attorn,?y--3~n,: ral has joined as a co-app..:llant. • ••• /2 For convenience, ,,c , ..... :....:.. -:a 11 the first appellant Mramba and the responde.1 -. Nr_;a:...""i- Mramba was the Minister of Induscries and Ngala!-the sitting member for Rombo for the previous fifteen years. Mr. Ngalai I s petition tv t:1e Higo court contained 39 grounds of complaint. They include corrupt pra·ctices, i.e. bribery .ind tr-=ating, · disrUption of r.ampaign meetings, secrE: campaigns and acts Of non- compli.ance with the ·1,1~..;_p_-:-ovis.~Ons of the 1905 Elections Act. The High Court dis,ritssed the

allegations of brib=rY and treating and disruption. Ngalai abandoned a number of ·comrlaints in the cou~se of the trial. The High court found ten inc~d~,1ts of illegal .. ~ -~po~paigns proved, thrP.e of which w~re by clergymen. Mr. Ngalai nds r.1._.cd a cross.,.appeal against :.!ll~ the dismissal by the crial judg~ of two charges of bribery against MrA :Mramba. He also purported to file a cross-appeal·alleging ·incidents of treating on the part of Mr. Mramba during three Occasions of illegal campaigning. Before us, Mr. ·:Lakha appeared for Mr. Mramba, Mr. Mlawa for the Attorney-General and Mr. Jonathan with Mr. Shayo for Mr. NJalai. Before we proceed to deal with the appeal, we think it would be convenient to dispose of the cross- appeal first. On both the occasions involving bribery, the tri3l judge found that the allegation of bribery was supported by evidence of witnesses ••••• / 3 3 who had re9eiy2d and ~=c2pted the sums of money, i.e. :;hs. 1,S00/- ;,nd sr.s. 1,uoo/-, rt1spectively. He held that be ,_.,,ould .:-t:::c1 ;ire corroboration of such ~ccomplice ev,,idencd bef,,_ ·e he was prepared ~o find the allegations es:ablished. He could not Mr. Shayo submitted before us that the tria L judge had erred in requiring ·corrobOration. He ststed that if the trial judge had believed the evije~cd of the accomplices he should have found the 3llegations proved without the necessity

of corr'.Jjoration. v~e fail to under- stand hOW in such c,i.r::urn.st.,r:ces Mr. Shayo could contend that the ·:::· .. al jw.:.J..i ·-dd erred. Mr. Shayo' s argument is totally devoid of merit and needs no further cc•; sJ.d ····A ti "r1. As regards ct~ ctllegatlons of treating in the course of thr~e of the illegal campaigns, this court pointed out to Mr. Shayo that on those three occasions the allegations we=e made in respect of illegal campaign~ and treating as such was not alleged. Treating as such on those thrP.e occasions was not averr~d, canvassed at the trial, or put to the Other party. The qu2stion of treating was not in· issue or ever made an issue, nor raised directly or indiractly or by implication. J\-'.r. Mramba had no opportunity to deny or give1. an explanation of such allegaUori•.• 1 J. J. --- J Further, 3m•~'ng th;; ,: 2.1 eq 1 tions rr ,de i!'i th~ petition to raise thase allegations on ?ppeal, since they wer3 not the subject of adjudication or ccnsider~tion 3t the trial court. Mr. Shayo ccnceded that such allegations of treating 1,•.~re net. prop-;rly raised, and he abandoned them. ~he cross-appeal f~ils. 1·Je now turn to the app.:al of f·ir. t·,ramba. we consider the incider. ts c..:-nnected •.·:i th i!. l ?gal campaigning which the trial jud.Je fot.:r:::i ,,st3L..,lished, issues of law. Th~ cruci~l point of law raised, in our view, is whether an ill~~Jl

campaiQn is an illegal practice. course, that an .;illegal campaign w~s an illegal practice. He stat!d in his judgmdnt:- "Theri~fore elect~on campaign by :::1y body in~~iviju~l ·)th,:!r than. the .Party or by permission of the Folitical ~,.c:-.y i.:.:: Li.len-:,l • ..• "s non,'. ,:;f th.-;-r, \'':1S • • • organized er mc1n~:vd - :.:-: ,,,~t ~,v ,!c a·:.thOrised j~ the Poiit~c3l corrmitt~e of th2 Party ,-~ ·1ch c: t:·, ~m ·. · :-! •. i llec:;e:.. Each consi:i tut:od 2n :.:'..1(0,31 pr.,ctice._". • ~~ -4 I •<\ • ( ~ f ~ ,. ~ ~ - ... . .. .. \ 5 Mr. Jonathan support~d the judge's proposition. He r2fer»ed to section 51(1)(b) of th~ Elections Act, 1985, which r~ads:- "5 1. - ( 1 ) ·.Jh .,re th,~ re is a contested clecticn in a constituency (a) ... ( b) no can "iid3b: at such -~l-. ction nor p-~rso:1 0 acting on his b2hal£ (whether or not such person is acting •-.iith the approv3l er consent of the cancidate), sh3ll conve~e or address any public ~e2ting in the constituency for the p11rpose of furtharing the c3ndidate's election, ether th3, the meeting h~ld by or under th~ auspices of the Political _committee of the Party and no candidate or any such oth-'!r person shall undertake any public or door-to-door canvassing save as may be permitted by the Political Committ3e of the Party.". He submitted that any 3ct in contrav.?ntion of the provisions of section 51(1)(b) would be an illegal

pr3ctice as such a contr3vcntion went tu the root of the Electi-=>ns Act, since th."lt would pr,2vent the holding of free and fair elections. He went on to submit that only a prohibited act cvmmitted in the course of a lawful campaign ·.,:ould b2 an 5-ct of non-compliance with th.~ provisions of the Elections ~ct, and not an illegal practice. He instanced the ~rovisions of section 52(2) the contr~vention of which, such ~s the failura to afrord a fair and ~qual opportunity to the candijates to addr:=ss a campaign meeting, as an act of non- compliance. However, s2ction 52(2) ref~rs to 11 non-eompliance with th8 provisions of this Part or with any rules of th•~ Pr3rty mnde for the purpose of this Part;" and bOth sections 51 ;"3nd 52 are. contained 6 in Part VI of the ilections Act, under the heading "The Election Campaign". sth e~del~tiO~ 9 ~· th Mr. Jonath3n also r~farred to e words 11 or ether misconduct" from s•=;ction 108( 3) (a) of th. 1985 elections Act. The provisions of s,~ction 108(3)(~) are the sAme 3s those of section 123(3)(3) sc·ction 123(3)(a, the 1,.iords ".3ny cth~r misconduct" I I H~ w3s of the view th3t the deletion of the •,,:ords 11 0.':'.' cth•ir :nis.::onduct'' was done because they were "unnec:: ssfi ry' 3 s th(·y ,;2r,: ej usdem ganeris with 'I·' corrupt or illegRl practi~es. wh.~tL c-.:ns::itub,c an illi::>gal pr,ctic.a had b-'•?!: s,:t cut in s2..:tic.:1

1C.'.:'(2\ .md section 103 of th~ 1985 c::1,2ction s . ,ct. not ~xhaustive ir. definin0 illegal pra..:tices, yet th~y arc th~ only on2s s~tting out wh~t would ;i provije 3S Simil3r provisions to what ,,,ould constitute corruption in th:: ' .!i' .· ~ form of bribery ::l nd tr,-a ting rmd so on. In elections '-~I held under th~ 1970 El~ctions Act, illegal campaigns ·: I ',' l had constituted illegal pr3ctices by virtue of the words 11 or othe;_- misconduct cont,ined in the provisi~ns ~ I ) of section 123(3)(a). In CA 22/81 ~zindakaya v. Ngua ! I I .' I• I (unreported), the trial court described the three :'i I i1 ' I ! •••••/o7 I ! I f.mt-==1:.~lllmJD!rt,.~-._--.~.,~----.---~•'·•~m . .ca_ I• ",. .\ ' 7 illegal campaigns as illc;3l pr~ctices. This court corrected that ,3n:l st::it.~d 1 T:1,2 tr:...31 judges found more properly, rr.iscunduct ••• " 11 a public or ctoor-to-ctoor canv.e ssing" is prohibi ttedo In CA 3/E:2 •:e j j a v. !<on:: J :;. Ct:1s..:rs (unreported) this court, in dealin, with "p·Jblic canvassing" ::is cont3in2d in section 66(1)(b) of the 1970 Elections Act, which was in pari materia with section 51(1)(b) of tha 1985 Elections Act, had h<:'ld t.'1., t ":rn illeqal or unauthori s;d public campaign or ca~vassing ••• amounts to a misconjuct within th~ mda~ing 0f the provisions of section 123(3)(a) of the (1970 El~~ticns) A~t;~ at pag~ 28, and at page 24, An illegal

campai;n was not included in tha 1, section 102(2) and saction 103 of the :385 Elqctions Act. In CA 20/81 Chiwanga v. :uoa {unrclported) this court he.ld that: "not •.::very cff2nce or the, contravention of th~ provisions of the Electicns Act, 1970, amounts to 3n 'illegol practice•. Th~ expr~ssio~ •illegal practice' must ba confined tc the specific offences or contraventions expressly so described.~. In section 108 of the 1985 Elections Act which de~ls with the avoidance of an 2lection on an election petition, the election of a candidate could only be declar~d void on the ground of corrupt practicas, or illegal practices or for non-co~Dliance with t,e provisions AA ,... -.. , 9 is not an ill ...?qal piractice. an,~ th<"? provisions applic':lblc 10uld b,, s,,cti0n 108( 3) {c), which deal 1.. with non-compliance ,.,i th tha provisions of the Act. An ill~gal campaign is 3uch non-compliance. i,/r~ s,r,1 of the vL2w th '"t th'2 trial judge erred when he h~ld that the illeq3l campaigns constituted ill~gal practices, and contr3v2ned eith2r the provisions of section 108(3)(a) or section 108(3)(d) of the 1985 Elections ;,ct. He hold that an illegal campaign is act of non-compliance and contruven~s the provisions s~ction 108(3)(c) of the 1985 Slections Act. The other point of law in the appeal refers to th•~ stG?ndard of proof re-.:iuired in =1n ,~lection petitiC'n.. On this is~uc i'ir.

Mlawa associated himsalf with Mr. Lakha' s submission. \,,Jc think that it has now been established that a ~2titioncr has to prove his case beyond re3sonable dOubt, as in a criminal trial, although an el~c~ion retiticn is a civil m3tter. This point is not in dispute. Another point of law raised, indirectly, concerns the nature o:f an el{•ction peti ticn. Mr. Lakha submitted t~at members in 3n 3udience particip3ting in an illegal campaign would be ac~cmplices, more or less as in a criminal tr.i.:il, an--ii t:h,:;,:ir evd:.:lence :would normally ~Je think tLnt ':.:, Gl~ction petition, though primarily a civ~l suit, has ce:tain f~~tures usually associat3d 10 with criminal mot:::,,rs ·,:1·.: t1,is factor n.iv,:1s it 3 rath~r hybrid charact~r. 1925 El~ctions Act, th~re are offencr:;s '"hich :1ttr~ct p:.mishm, nt in the forr.i of fines or imprisonm~nt. I concerned with corruption, bribery, personntion, forge,ry and other sirni:i.ar kindred acts which are inherently criminal ofrences. It would s•ier., that parsohs found to h3v~ coraMitted such acts could be I tried in a criminal ccurt, not in th~ court hearing I' We think th.3t i~- respact of such offences, as say in a case of bri:t--;,ry, th,." parties involved would be all accomplices, bec~use th~y have committed criminal Offences. In respect of non-criminal offences which attract no fines or imrrison~~nt and which arise from

non- compliance with the 1985 Elections Act, wa do not think that the question of "acccmplice evi.:lence" can arise. Those would be acts cf a civil n~tura, and a court would consid,~r all ~-\·idence add,1ct:d in that c:ont2xt. This is rather an anomalous situation, but, 9s we have said, thR 19~5 El2ctions Act is of a hybrid Character. as a r=:ason-:'lble '"nd \•:-:,rk"l::il,~ n:lc, in the absence of any pn2cej..,nt ur aut:~·=,ri 'cy. I,i ,_.c.:·uld fOllow this rule 11 ,, humb~r of incijents in which the trial judge had found that Mr- Mr~mba h:d b2en involv~d in illegal campaiqns. Basically, at l~ngth by counsel f0r the p3rti'::s~ Mr. Lakh3 for :,ir. Lr3l:lh-~ has s·..1bmitted that the trial jucge had erred in 2jseptin9 the evidence adduced on behalf of iu> Nqalai in r-:-cspe::ct of those incidents.· .s~r.1,- o:::,i,;,ctj_.:)!1S ,.,1~re on the ground that .:.!'1 t·. -nns of th~ .:ourt of ::~l~ .1-f,. -L provisions -c--- -- - - and draw infer2nces or f'o-::-t.''· _,. .s f jr 3s findings ,. ,_.,.. It woul::l of the demeanour 3~d Danne= of witnesses. --------- be only in rare circumstances that an appellate court would intef~re with~ trial judge's findin~ b3sed on . • 'I '' such ,n oµir.ion.- to interfere, as for instance if the trial judge had omitted to cunsiddr or had mis~ons~rued some : ,t materi3l evid~nce or had erred in his approach in his evaluation vf the evidence

adduced, ¥4 41%:#144 \!Je would then this court can and \:uuld interfere. k8ep this principle in mind in our consideration of the grounds of app,':al. ;-!owever, be fort~ ·. ',! ,-,mb=1rk en an examin3tion of the: incidents on.ri by -:.me, -,.:e think we should dis:,osa of Mr. Lakha' s su~missicn th,t th2 ~vidcnce l~d on the ill2gal campai9ns ·.-;as r.0t in terms of the aver men.t·. In the petition Mr. Ngalai had avarrad in the pcti tion. 11 that r-:r. Lr:.1r:1b3 h:1d con::!uctcd s.__:cret" c,:impaigns. respondent (i,e,. '.•,r3rr.t-a) conducting "s,,cret" campaigns, al though th-= :2nd issue rl;f-~rs to influential clergyman conducting 'illegal" ca::,p:c::..:3 ns- r-:r. L.:1kha submitted 11 that no evirlence had b, ,.:-i add"Jced a:,out any se.cr.:t'' campaigns; •-~nt ~~s meant was illegal Ii "secret" \'Jas a r.1i snon,:r; I campaigns, and th•.? t.r.i. 01 ·:":s cc•:1.:u,:bc;d and arguments 0 Nch0dy h1d or could have adv~nced on that b~sis. c0ri ..Lic ted .:.n II st.:crct" from the Political campaigns 1-.iere ~~·-'= that as i t may, we dO not committee of the Party. think that this ot:-j-:,ction by ;ir. Lakha has substance. The tri:ll judg~ found that ten illegal campaigns by or on behalf of l•.r.- !··1ramba had taken place. Th.~ first illegal camp.nign tvok pla~e at Usseri Market • I 13 on 9th Cctob~-,r, 1925, an:i •v ,s th,~ ,- subject of grounjs 5 an"."! 6 of th appeal. for

hr. tJgalai, the most irnrcrt1rt on2 being P \·J 6, 0 0 who all.-~g,,d thc1t ht: 1:Jas pr ,s,-nt . n0n Mramba was introduced t~ the villas~rs in :he Uss~ri Market Mramba' s achievE-?ments were extol1,.--j .,nd i12 them heard ch.3nts of 11 !-'lram.ba", 11 1,r.'Hr,!Ja". H-1 saw t~amba in a short ------ - - - --- - As expect,'!d, th8 Vt.~rsiun Jiv.;:;n by i'Jr,'!mba and his wi tn~sszs was in dir~ct conflict. passing through th~ village and had stop~!d to buy some potatoes. He: met a .m~n !Jhom h,, knew .,nd he asked th2 man to b:..,y him som.a potatoes for which Mr3mbc1 paid the mcm. campaigning or proc-1ssion or introduction or singing of "l"iramba", His witnass2s supported him in that v~rsion. This i" .-: :,l:._,· .-~ v ~ry brief =1nd .=.:1bbrevi ated version of that incid•:nt. r1r. Lakh,'l haj laboriously Som,? of !1is criticis,1.c:: cf th.: tri-sl judg,=" s findings ;,Je pay tributa to Mr. Lakha for his in:;c13·:ry, but \ve dO not prOpCs.3 to fOllOw his cxc:i:-:ipJ e in .sc:c1 ti:1izinq the evidence in d,.3tail 0 ... . '14 .., 'f =~ his judgment ha saij, at page 456 of th-' r-~corJ:- ·'Ther•:· •re, th ,::-,::for.~, t:1·,sc t\"',o v.-=rsi:>ns of''= S\L'!-'c:,d:'..y ;:;.me?. stCrJ~ On?. :;f th;n is, obviously, net tr•1.-:.:. :h•: duty is, :::r: cours•:, o:, th1 cuurt to scrutinize ,3nd "1~:pr<1is-..! ':!-, ...::viJ-2nce i-.1 ith judici;l .:>bj~cti- vi ty 1nc.l :Lei J,_·,

1.,1hich .Jr,•~ of th,, b,10 vt?.rsi.ons i.;; tr-.:-::: oi:- ;-1cceptoble. As r2g3i:-ds the first r,·sronJcnt, th~ court does not have to b li~v~ th~ defe:,ce story, i~ is enouqh if th,,, said story sounds reason.3.bly probabl,:.:. ". '.Je think th'lt th- ( had to prove his Hr. f-'ir3mba did not have to 0stablish ,3 ''r-;ason3bly probable" so'-...nding def r-,nce. ,,I(; thin,: this was a mis- direction by th-~ tri "1 j ud:J,, on the st::ndard of pr.:>of • I ,j :-;e ::il1ow grounds 5 .a,1.l S illegal campair:in v:hich tcok r,,lace at th-2 house of K. J.1O Leshabari 0:1 12th C·ctob,!r, 1965. It ':.,s common grounj that am ~ting did tak~ pl~c~ and w!s att~nded by about cne Mr. Mramba was introduced to the gathering by rt.W.13 as a candidate for Parliament and then Mramba stood µp and greeted th-= gathe:,ring and confirmed that he w3s a candidate. Then On•' Fu~v. Kanuti ur,yid the gathering to vote for l"iramba. • • 0 0 /15 ,,, 11 f i C \' Ji;,.-.,1J•, dlt4R4 it&& /LSU. 15 fund raising for th~ Church~ was any illegal c3mpaigninq or th ·1t Mramba was thcr-:. Again Mr. Lakha w,2nt into gr,::':lt -~nd minute det:,il s in analyzing the evidence a,duc,:d by the parties. The trial judge disbeli.-,·ved ,'!r:-:imba ,ind his wi tn2ss::s and preferred the evidence ot Ngal3i's witn~sses. Th.: trial judge 3t p.Jge 493 of the record, in connection 1'lith this incident st~t~d:- "I hav,,.

consider2j th::, cief,;nce story 3S told by Ro ,, o s 8 , Li , 1 3 , 1 ~ , 2 5 , and 4 1 V!ry C3r!fully, ~nd withuut beating 3bOut the bush, I find th~t i t dG's not sound reasonablX:__ ?5:c::'~c:'J!t_:: "• H,:re again, th-= trial jud9,; h".ld ~,ut on Mri3mba the onus of ~st~blishing his d~f~nce on the basis that i t That, as we h ~v-~ pointed out earlier, is a misdirection on the standarj of proof, and vitiates the finding of the trial judga. We allow ground 7 of the app2al. Ground 8 of the appeal r,3latc0s to an incident at Maporora pombe club on 26th G.:::tober, 1985. Po'...Jo 31, P.W.32 and P.W.)4 t~stifi0d on this matter for Ngalai 0 According to . thcir testimony, th,:re 1vere about 40 people in the p-Ombe ·club when a landrover drivan by . - .L and another person •,nt,:r,:d th.: pom:':>e clul:::o A song those present urging th.:rr, ta vot.?. f::.'r ::r:,rnbao Shortly theraaftar, thos~ visitor:-s laf~. R.W.8, .~o-•o14 cind ao•d.43 tastiffoj and all .ianiJd that th,~y went to Maporor::i pornb~ club; in f=ict they alleged th.=it th•=Y did not kno 1,.; \vh,~r,, the pombi= club waso The trial j udg-2, in his r:-,eticulous ,v,,y, 1v mt into . the evidence in .great d-= ta i 1. wi tnessc:s for Ngalai 2nd disb2lievad th~ witnessas who tcstifi:.:d for Mt:-;=imba. And afb.=r re,·iewing all th.; evidence he concluded th3t this 3llegation was provad, because "th<? denials (by rt

.... e, ;,.-.i.14 :end Ro,v'.43) rl.o not raise any E' ~§or. ·ble doubt in U1e. ::1i:1,l of the court" o Despite Mr. Lakhc'l. 1 s su!-:>mission t:-13,t t.'lc tri3l judge had erred in holding that RaW.8, R.W.14 ~nd R.W.43 were partial witn,:sses, ..:.n th.::! .:ibsen,-e of any r,➔ 3son or ground, we 3r(:! s,,tlsfit:ad that th:= t~::l judge was justified in -::Oming to th-2 cunclusiou he did. Grounj 8 of the 3pp8al is dismissed. W8 come to 5ground 9 of the ~rp2al. It r~fars t0 □n incident '3t the house of Alft:-•'·d Sa]J./i!ki3na on 2nd August, 1985. ,. There, it ~9S alleged, Mramba w3s i~t~0ctuced to a gath!ring of about tWO•·•hundrGd peopl·;; '1s 3 M:l:1istl?r for Industri:Js and a Parliamentary candidnt<:? .,nd the people wer-2 askad !· - I ., • :'.;I•;! ; ~ I If• .d ''1 ;.j, ; ·,1 I 'Ill During the intr~ducti0n --f Mri'lmba : ! ',, II I, l ' i certain ceremonial passing 0f me3t ~nd pombe w~s allege1. '.. f ,1 jl &amba allegedly spoke a few wcrds t~ the people whu :.it: ' . di ' I~! ,, gathere<i th ere. 'I ,, the party, Hhich incLitsnt =il -, y t: .. ::y '·Jt:;r7. infurmerl was j1i ll jubilee, testif~ed t:.; the ~b•.Jv•:: "ff-"ct. F.\·J.21, who .I ~ •l~t had accompanie-j -=1n•:,th=.::t :tn°:i t _ t.:: tr.,~ :")i'Jrty at Sa),,a-k---a-na--' s :' t• :. I~' .·1,1; 1r11, :]' '.j' g~thering. t I ~, element was irnD0rt.,~,-' inf-._- th-., -·.:::-.Jc~'"=iinas, sv much so .'"I lj to

that effect. 'l'lli 'tt, .I ' 11 Mramba denie·: th:Jt h"' w:s :;t t;-:."" .,3thPring; -:in that .r . ~, I ; !:~ : day he was at Arusha attcniin~ =i G~vernmenL me~ting. In I ;f,ll •t; , _r I ",h I :, J iJudge went int0 min Jb..: --,,t::ils, 1 s)m<:> ,;f v,·n.:.ch woulr! seem :'irrelevant. 'ih<cre 1v.:is ,, --i<:.,c:;,-1_ ~R,=;l (\iscusserl about a missing page from a minute f::.lr:, ~r. "!The trial judge consider-~,- R. ,i.-1-'i (,'.sl-:=inq,), the General ' )_Nanager of Tanzania Breweries F ar:7s .:....irni t,<:, ;Jntru stwurthy, iprcsumably because he w:1s ;_,:.>rkinq in ':1n instituti:Jn under I \[Mr11mba' s Minis try. ~·.;,contending , that he was else,vhere :,t the m,teri.:,1 time. He / 'I 1e the trial judge st=itc,d, =:it D3C]e :1: ... f th,~ record "The Party who puts up .3n 2li"1-:;i f•.)r his dt2fenc0 has the burden of ·proof preponderance ::,f prcb.:::')iliti,:s"v And again at page 514:- 11 I find th-,,t th•·~ ;--,_::_i~i ;:,,.,t up by ·th8 first resp~nient Jn this item, 1ces not, on th~ holanc~ uf prub~bilities r~ise any rP.asonabl,: r:J.oubt in the mind vf this court.''• An alibi ple_a is nvrma· l.y ,ssu::::i,t•d with criminal trictls. As we remarked, before emh,rking on an ex3mination of the factual ~vidence airtuced, Ngalai h~1 the burden of proving his allegations beycnrt reasonabl8 doubt, as in a criminal trial. We think that th2 tri3l judge erred in holding that

the person relying un ~n alihi has t0 prove .'-1~ his alibi 11 0n a .pr<'?ponciernnce of probnbilities" or 11 0n 3. ·!(~.,.,~ i, balance of probabilities". w~ think that on such :an issue, as in a criminal trial, the perscn has only to rc1.isa a reasonable doubt, ~nd no questiun uf probabilities, at all arises. alibi fer the r·:ason h1:.' CJ,-=.ve, ,n-i th.-;t w,s a material err'.)r of law as i t r 1~l-:ite<i tu burrkn •)f :)ruof. We allow ground 9 of the nppeal. Ground 10 of the appeal. It was allegei that a meeting took place on 20th August, 1965, at the house of R.W.2 Timothea. The m·:eting was .Jstensibly t0 celebr::ite R •.1J. 2' s daughter's betrothal, but in f,ct it was t•) welcome Mramba as the guest of hunour ~f R.W.2. Mr~mba arrived with a group of about fift~en people. Mramba adciressed the gathering, which was Pstim~ted ~t 500 peuplP. by some witnesses, and introduced himself ~s ~ cRnciidate for the Romho seat. He was Rlleg~ci t; have sairi th~t in accordance Jr,r.; ......__ ~- .I H..: called on one Rav. Fathrr 3hao had help1:d Ro:,./.2 -I cart pombe for th1: party, ~nd ~~sG to slaughter an animal, which h~ did. evidence CF Po ./ 2, o r. ,Jo ~ "'!n,:\ i? ...

5. I ,ii the house of R.,.J.2 ,t all. house of H. •. i.25 .Shirirr,~. 11nd r pa:rt±ctul 'lrly conts-:ndcd ch~t he could not pos3ibly have invitGd P.'N.2 Fr,,nk to his hQusc 3S lL· -,nci Po,io? ?rank A considerabl~ ~mount of irrelav:!nt ~viden~a ~•s adduced in co,,n-~ction with this incid,mto _of t:Jstimony wc1s given c1s r,_.;Q'c.rds the E'O.mitv bet·.,r.~:m · •••• /20 - .--s.,,_..,_ .._ _ ---..:.---.--.-ieli....Aile·ifil:Jra1MilllrillC'll--llll♦-------· JnCa.. .&. ...L. .-a..& 2c, II•i also some sort sf J. surv-·,y m-:i i-::: ·)f roads leading upto ; -vicinity of ?.., 0 2' s hC-us,J, Mr. L~kha c.:>ncentr~t~d his criticism ~nth~ tri,1 judge's ,ssessment of the: ..~vidence of th<= witnesses wh) ,,., testified. ·;;e seem.ad to sugcic st th~ t th.:: ' ,;_ • I favoured village Chairmen v1ho t~--;tifi'~d for i:r. Ng ,1:i.i but I ' wa ■ less fayoprabJ.y-r;ir.iclined I tcw.:i.r::ls those c-=ilh?1 by Mr. Mramba. It is true that it '"'as n.:t e.J.sy t--') under- :in staying c:i t Shirima' s house tc. ~v~i 1 -:-\is i:urb-,nc ·. :at Romb:::. unbslievable, nor why th=it should r-~sult in his rejecting Mr .Shi,...ima' . - . · s eviJo2nc,a confirming that .·Ir,mb~ his hcuse on th2 mat2rial ~ay. in detail and h-2was fully S':'tisfi-=d th~-c thi;:: witn=SS..!S , for Ng~lai ~~d substanti~lly told th~ truth. H~ jis~2lievcd 'i:lid take pl~cs:: -:;n 20th ,·,ugust, '.!.985, ,t th" h.:>uss= of ~.

v.2 11nd thdt it WFJs . ' The ·trial j u:lc,~ •,I l 21 We come to gr0uni 11. motor v-~hicl~s, including =m int.2r-city bus, Hs;)l:!y..:i-1 the slog3n w3s t~ his d0trimant ~sit inctic"!bid th3t hJ expressed in the slognn. ,, ,. ,\ number of witness<=s t.2stifi2d tv s,,~ing :n..:,tor vehicles, including a c.3nt<:=r, 3 T..)yotr1 oick t..:?, :=i· this slog.;,n. It· woulj s1.:em th.:i. t .nearly all th~ witn~ss~s they saw the Inter-City bus with th 3t slog ,n at dif .:'-:r .mt c.::.mpcign meetings. Mr. Mr3mba did not cl~rify whdther h~ S3W such slogans but st.Jte-:id that ;:,ven if the slog,n w3s thee~ i t w.;15 completely harml8ss. c~mpaign m~etings, ~-~-42, District commissi.)ner ~.)~bJ, R.~>J.47, Chairm;,n of c-.rnpaign r,lli,,s ,=,nd R •. i.48, "! sup-c::rvisory deh,gate 2.lh:ge::J th,-:-.t it 1 -1:s not th-,ir CJnc:;rn to look ~t vehicles. testified th~t he had s~en 3n Int~r-city 3us with th~ s;:iid slogan painted th-::r..::on ~t C·-::- ~- icn m.. ,tings. Mr. Mramb.:i called :'-• ,J. 33 that he was 1-:luilding th8 ·~:::,,·!y o-·= tr! Int..:,r-City i3us TZ 60624. (incidentally Mr. Ng:l~j in his testimony mentioned TZ 60624). • • n • / 22 \ 1985, that the bus nev ,r , 5~ October, 1985 ~nd 18th JGcember, 1985 • .his invoice and recei)':t b,:.cks ,n:i w,:s net cross-exarnin2J On this testimony. The trL1l judge w3s s:1tisfi,:·: that th,~ slog,'rn for Mr, Mramba. H,2 h2lJ th.~t

th-:r,, ~,;"ls ov-.=rWhi:;lming evidence which establishe-:'. th3t at ·3.iff-::rc~nt r~lli~s vehicles. As regards the Inter-City bus, he w~s p3rtic1l3rly impressed by the 2vL;ence of A •.. i. 31, the:: ?olice itlspector llhich corrobor,:1.te-.i the evi •,~nee of the bulk of Hr. ;-Jgalai' s 111tnesses on that v2hicle. In vi21, of ::111 this ;r:,v2r- whelming" evidence h<1 f~,.md t:,5t r< • .:. 33 Singh had li3d. We think it is som-::1-.rh3t '-ic:.stic tu la.bel cros~-examina t ion. Howev.~r, ':Je think thee:.. th.:: tr-i::11 Judge was enti tl,~d t::. juxtapose th,2 11 overwr.eli:1ing' 1 . 3~ •I tvidence on one side ag-,inst th2 e\•i.18nc<2 :>f R • .J. : •, Sin9h, t I who rPlied en his invoice 3n.j r•::ceipt books in ~is t2stirnonyft Evidence in th•.; form ,:,f ,,1ri ting -::oes not n•.cC~ss:trily i. sean that it is infallil::le or conclusive., '--·r ind-22j j l necess:1rily sup.e-r.i.or to oral evidence. The tri:"'l ju.JgJ ·•.1.1ust have :1ssessed the testimony 1J2fore him Jn·.:: th-,n h:1 ' ;_came to his conclusion, which was supportabl-= ;:;n th= 2vi jcnce . •before him. He wa!:\ :-:·~satisfied II that th,. slogan ii J 23 Mr. Lakh~ submitted th:'3t th sl~J:Jn w3s j i innocuous ,:Jn i cuuld m1:'an a ch.,nge ir. ,~ombc '·Ji th:::,u t reference te, the 1-'::irliamc:ntary C·rn-:!i·Jn.b,s. .J~ think that the trial judge was justified in the contPxt of the circumstances, to giv: to

the slog~n the md1ning that h-e did. ';/e think that w-::s th.a correct int.::rpr•.:Jt:iti.:ino The trial j u<ige .JdOpt,,d thl.: proper st=md,r::I .:if proof 3nd wa dismiss ground 11 of the Rppe~l. Now to grouni 12. Thr~~ witness8s ~nth-~ si12 of Ngalai, P.W.22, ?.W.39 and P.~.40 testifiaj. rh!y alleged that they attended mass :i.t :'1k8l2h;3 :Church on the m~rning of 13th October, 1985 1 After Churchsa~v1cc th1:?y got out ,3nd one i.W.S jl/Jshvmbc introducc,-j r:r:,m'J':! t::, h the worshippers as a P:'3rli~mentary C~ndid~tc ~ni th..'l~ •.· Mramba ~limbed up ~n his 1,ndrover !n~ briefly adir.:Jss~d the crowd stating that he was ccnt,~sting th,~ ii.C-mbo S.?3.t, and was s~aking their support. Mr. Mramba deni2j th':!t he ~want tu Kikelelwa Church on 13th October, 1985. a letter on beh -=lf of ':! fri-=n-:l. !-ie deliv,2red the l.:Jtt-..'lr to R.W.16 and he.<i lunch th.2r-..J. r-1r. r,ramb3 state::! h2 <lid not even know wh~re Kik1lelw~ Church W3S situ:it~d. After the Church service at Kik,~lclwa ~s '311,.~ged. H; sJ.id f, on that day he W':ls elsawhere :ittenJing a m.,;eting. .~o lo7 ... ~ th~ hOuse of Ro;/.16, ,md had tab:n Vir. ,Mramti.:i there~and· rem'lined there for lunch, which finish,""d .-~t 1b;:;ut 3.00 p.m • • • • • /24 ,. 24 i ·(,pparently the; trial judg2 W"lS str-~ngly repell...d ,,· by R.W.7, whom h~ fCun~ w~s ~ brazen ii:r, to such an extent thc1t h..:

-:>:,:;,.rv ..:, • "In the c;ircumst.1nces of this c:~se, i t i3 1.ls 0 my view th3t gr03t suspicion is thrown Jn the whcl-=: c.::se f,:::r th,,, 1st r-·,sponjent on this 1t~m by the 1ntrJ~uct1~n Jf such a witndss (i.e. R. vJ. 7 ) ." o R.vJ. 9 ;-:lso att.,n,'.ej KiJ:e:::.21,v, Church .Jn th1t J:iy, 'R.,·J.16 C..)nfirmed .. t-he visit to him by Mr. .'ir 1.mbn assigne~ to gu3rd Mr. Mr~mb3 during th~ camp~ign confirmed Mr. Mramba' s evidi?nce in substanc~. The tri,l judge was of the vi2w that Mr. Mr~~b1 untruthful as he found i t inconceiv:1ble th ~t ;-,ir. Hr:unba hav2 gone all the way to ieliver a letter in th2 and circumstances all~g~d, en~ he adverted again introductivn cf R. . . ' witn~ss which tJ him was damning". dence of F.,.J.22 without rest.rv.:ition, but hv wns incident did not r,i.-::•: c1ny re:.:::s·-'n:cible .J,)ubt in his on the evidence bef''Jr2 r.im. l'here wer.~ ,-.: .:rt.::1in A ¥4&1~ ·:-.. I . ! 25 comments ma-ie by th2 tri;:11 judg•-= i.,1hi-...h fir. L~kh:\ h"'IS criticised, rightly in -::.ur vL:w. affected the l:>:isis ,3nrl subst.:ince ,:)f his finJing, whic:. ·w3s ;. substantially true. Th,.:! trial ju-:lg,~ :iid nc t :err respect of tha st=:i.ndarc1, :;f pr0of n,quired. Woe hesitJ.ts; interfere with ·his conclusion, si~c~ · h~ h3ct ,arrived at it ~ft2r having taken outside the Church w3s 0stim~t~d ~t 2~( er 500. number was 500. We dismiss grounj 12 8f

th~ Ground 13 of the 3ppeal deals with an ill~g~l conducted by a cle.r:9ym,rn. On this i t2r.i Keni Parish Church Rev. f·Iross'.'.) intruJuce,-: 7·!r • . ·lr3.mbo. P.W.15 testified th"'!t he ~tten<ied thir<i ~33s. pie ture was on a po st:,r cutsi i,:: th-= Church, with J. Rev. Mrosso tOld th~ worshippers Mr=:i.mba had be2n to the 1st mQss thorc and h31 s!nt greetings. thut day ,,n<i that Rev. ff;rosso ask,!d th~ con'Jr..'!g,tion - -...,.,_........_;,e.. ·+,..,·.!!l"!'lliflltla:lillaEll----al..L. A!1a. ..1.. A _ ..._ A _ ... A-···••211;■1 26 1,20, ta 1,300. i"lr. Mramba ·JenieJ that h:: r ,d ~tt-:?n'.l·-=' Keni ! Pari-sh Church th,::it day. He st::itad un that day, p:>llL1g Jay, he h=cd no tr3nsport .n"' did :-ivt :!Cten::l "ny Church Sl:lrvice a.nywher,. attended the 1st rr:·,ss --, 27th Cct::l)sr. 1985, an,j h~ lid i not see P. ·-J. 2 9 thee:. 1 •'nJ· ·- ··"°,- ' ,,.-- ✓ · ·'. -·..)m•1:.• - 1 ·: f '--'1g·n ng uy ..,_ 1at:.ten:!.2::l ,II perio<l during the cr:iirne.:igning. .",s ii::::·a L:'.l.Kh=! rightly fC ll•::)1,,·. That is one of those l..·:;,s,~rv,ti,.:.ns which Mr. !.,kh, . has complained "!bout in connec ti-..m with th~ j udg-,-,' s ~ . judge posed did not t~stify. • ••• /'27 27 "I.n th'-' light ,jf th•= '311•-:g'3ti•.)ns :!1- . ..!c, ·.)"1.:! .-uuld, of cuurs~, ,··ith-ut n,~cess?rily shifting .:ir til- ting ·the~ L?g3l bur---:c:n, have: exp8ctej th2 1st r?:>spor:-i

,nt t·--=- bE. ,bl-~ ,nd int, r _;st-:d to call ~ev. Mrossc, to give, .:it lc:1st, an explan?l ti-::in or ever 2 mi::,r,~ 5;.1gge sti.:in ;,s to why thc::se witn,.=sses shoul-"' delih ..=r=italy lie ;,nj s, .. ,,k tc irnplicab~ hirr:. ;-Jc) .such explan~tiJh ~r sugg.stiJn is 3V'3ilabl~ Jn this item • • ---- in s½i.:-tii'lQ In the first pl~C; Mr. Mrambr1 had nc duty to C'311 ::..::v. Mr·)s50 '-r 3ny witn::ss • . In,( the :secvnd place, i t w-=is n.:-t f•.)r Hr. Mr.=mb-;.i t•) - '.. establish nnd :=i,j.--Juce r-2:is.:,ns why the 1-.ritn•::.ss~-s for--Mr.,N9.-al.a.J.. We 3gr_e that ~r. L-=kha's critio~sm h3s murit. r. ' accnpted P.W.15, P.W.29 and P.Y.30 ~s witnessJ3 Jf ,md if that view 1-1,is t:::, be alter~~, :·ir., I-'ir,11:)). be if th~r2 was evi~e~ce which any event the tri :11 judge =rnaly:c,~d th2 evidence • witn<:.s.s,~s .1n b :tr: s.::..::'<=s --:.:1•: finally He sc:id: - "Th•:? :1(-:;-iia::.. '.:'_' ~he 1st r,?sron,:c:it, supp >rt;d by i'-'lr. :·1anc:::.i:-i, th=.it h-:.! ~,1,:nt fer th,? 1st mnss at ~e~t, d~-?s nJt raise 3ny -loubt ir: the: r.iL·1: f this Ccurt. ''. taken place "!S allc::-c,•~,j. ,·,i ••• • /28 ; 1-.· l l ...' ,. . I', ,. 21'1th October, 1985, at ;Jss,:ri l?~rish Church R1v. i<il,s:i.r~ n-.r;,2 1-Jitnesses fur Mr. Ngalni campaigned for Mr. Mrarnba. gav'= evidence, P •. L1<-1, i? •.ll.3F.i :.ni P.W.37. They g3v8 j. simil:'lr evidence. I at Usseri P;irish

Church ..:.n 20th Oct,::,~.;r, 1985, .:i.n,j mass WiiS celeb_r= b=:r\ 1:y :{1:V. Kil c s'l.r':l. Rev. Kil"l s:1ra ':! i :'.res se r\ ?ind that it 1v,"!S f,.;r the g,)..)d them to vot(: of ROmbo. Th~ offici 'l.tL1g he w0nt tc Ussnri Parish Churc~ c- ~r~y. priest was Rev. Kil3s3r,. talk about th~ electi~n or 1ivis0 the wcrshi~pers t~ v~te for Mramb':I. ordin,rily r-~sii8~ in \rusha, but h2 ' ,' when he W':ls answ-=:ring qu"' sti-):,s. The judge W"lS impress~~ ~y th8 evi~ancc of ani he f , 1n·l th:o t th ~y 11ere trut~ful 1 points P.W.14' s eviJence w~s the s3m3 :'lS th,t dep0n3j t~ by P.W.36 anJ P.W.37. He s'l.i2 tha evirlence cf P.~.24 hardly r':lis~d any doubt in his minj. ~~ acceptej th.= evidence adrluced by the wi tn,:; s se s f')r ;-:r. Ngalai :1n j campaigned fur Hr. 1•irc-1mba "IS "111.::g<'"i "lt Uss~=ri P.,.rish The congr~g,ti0n put FJt beb-Jean 1,200 t,J ,, - • /'I .,. -- - - p / I I ,\ l' ...,.,,._ A fl■ 29 Now tc g ruun1 15 of the .::lC ::-:-2-:.l, th•~ 1 ~st i t-;m Jf :,illeg=il c3rnpaigning. It w~s alleg -d that en 20th Oct)b~r, ,1985, at th"! Parish Church 3t Low2rere Rev • .'->ssc1we c1mp"1iCJnCd Mramba. It was 3ls0 alleged that Rav. M~ssawe cursed those Christians vih:., w0uli n,:-t v~t.~ for Mr. r,:r3mo;,.. hll these witnes;es testified th,t ,3ttenrled r~ ss ;-it the Lvwereru Church 0 ··-n 20th Towards th2 en1 ~f the s~rvicc RGv. M3ssaw2 man an·' of

dissv:nt. cross ani s:3i}: -let this cross f3ll on yc,u", er wor..;s t ; th,~ t ,'!ff8ct. to number 1, 100. f;'½bricateri ,:!vidence =1')3inst him. P •.,J.30 ;ils0 t-2stifi:,d. on the material rlay anc'. •icnh~d th:?t i~:::v. hss:iwe R.iJ. 35 ,lsu testifL.} ..i on the s 3 me 1 in-2 ,s 30. 30 evirlence given by P.'d.11, F.~J.12 1.nd P. ,.13 3g:1i'1st Massawe was impossicl~ t; b~li~ve. To that the trial · judge remarked: - "In his 3jdress i'1r. Li'!ki":3 s,:Dnits th.:it t:1~ evijence un this p0int : f Lucian Mlas,~i (P.'l-1.11), i?rcch2s P3uli (i? • • 12) :1nrl. V:1l~ntin;:: rti'l.ym-:Jntl (P.··1.13, is imi:::::ssible. Mr. L3.kh:1 :1rgues that ~~v. M~ssawe must h~va been v2ry fool h~rdy t0 h:1v~ c:1mi:::~i~J~~ fer the 2ir3t Respon~~nt so ~penly Jni publicly, riskinJ disciplin~ry acticn frc~ the church 3ni t~rni- shing his r~pu~=ti~n 1.s the authurity for urg1nising 428 Christian cu~muniti2s in Usseri. .cccr~ing t~ ~~- L1.kh~, this f=~th~r in his ca~ ·•.1',uld·:-· r ..:st.:..-ain ,~ev. ::::issa-w~ fror., 1.ny :•:.':llic misc•Jn.::uct. In~..:;,2d, it is in e.::vidence, --,hich V-':S r...:t ~isput...d ,n -i 1vhich I accept, t:-;Jr: thc:r,i -3r·2 428 crg:1nis;;d Christi:an C...;mrnuniti2s ir. TJsseri.• 1 • "In tht:! mattt::r before me ,:victence h.1s b-=2n given, and which I hav~ ~cccpt~d, in it3m 3 ~bove, to the effect thi'l.t Jna :5th~ friests t~li his congregation th:1t =11 w~~t

he h~J s1.i! in rcl~ticn to which c2n·lii~t~ th~y s~oul~ v~t2 f~r ~,snot I fur his perscn-"!l "::):;nefit: It v'cis f:,r th.! I b~nefit 0f th~ whule c~nstituancy, thd wh.1lc i District cf ~c~bu. T0 ~~, this is th~ crux I cf the m3tt~r. I h~v: r~~son t~ b!li2va that both Rev. Isiiure :,il"s":!r:, ~n.j R,~v. ·,n.Jr2:i. I-Irossc, anrl the s:1~2 must n!c~ss,rily ~lso be tr~~ ~ith reg:,rJ t : ;-.,,."v. 1'-:.:,ssaw,:;, g-=:1-_;in-::ly 3ni sii1c0rcly beli ~v,~rl th-:;t tb.! r-,irst _;R,::s;:- mdent w.):11 i b2 instrumt:::ntc:.l to,,;3rjs the.: -i2v0l·:-pment Jf .~)i'.lbOo Th~ reason ~r b~sis for such: b~lief is t) ~ny upright min,;cd .':Ind str3igh t forw,rd \ :.· person obvi<..:us.". 32 He then ,pp~r~ntly r~Jected R2v. M~ss,~~•s t-stim~ny without further c0nsi1eration. allowed irrelevant mi:!tt~rs tu affect his iecision on this item anrl his conclusi~n th~t Rev. M~ss~we h,.l connuc ted n campaign fc r :'ir::imb:1 ,,t tr:e r ari'sh· -church at Lowerer,2 on 20th Octcbc;r, 1985, c,nn•Jt be support,::Jd. We adv~rt briefly t~ th~ ,tt&mpt by Mr. L~kh~ to establish that th,.: Ch1rch 3.t L.;w._,rer•,, ·,:.:,_s nut cons 1cratcd and w:~s not a Church.. \k :,gr.,12 with th,., tri -=.11 judge of the petition it w~s -~ Churc~. 1,1 • \1: . ' Of the 10 it~ms uf ill0gal c1rnp~ign founrl established by the tri,l jurigc, '.'/C :1,:·.•e 3.Low2~4 it~ms, those c;::ontained in grcund _-2 "'!n '. 6 ·'f

th:! i:!r~,e'"l ( Us sari "··- ground 15 (campaign ~t Lcwe~~ru Church by Rev. M3ss-=.1w2). He have dismisserl 6 ib.=ms, these ccnt=:iin-=d in grvun~ 3 :J:c ,.::1:. Timothee Ly~ruu), groun4 11 (Slog1ns on mctur vehicl]s at rallies), grounri 12 (camp::iign by MshO-mba uutsi ~c Kikelelwa Church), ground 13 (C~mpaign by Rev. MrossJ at Ken1 Church) 3.nd ground 1-1 (campaign by :~.,v. Kihs3.r,_ at Usseri P~rish Church). • •• • / 3 3 .... . ,_,,,►,.-,__ ,d!!2.,,- IB, , ·, ' .,:r~---..." ·<\-. :;, - - ' .i ' . .\ /\' 'ti -· .. , ' ·.,._. 32 In th~ r,sult w~ fin~ " ~tl was invt,lved in six (C) ill, .' 1 c;mi.:i"ligns. stated earlier th.=,.t "in ill-':g ,,::. c=,7.:-;',ign is 2n n0n-complience with the prr:vi si -ns e,f th() ·:1 cti.Jns Act, 1985, ;,.nci wvuld contc:1v,,n .., the pr )visit,ns .)f 11 108. {J) _,,h,. , L_ci-' .;1 ( ) f , C~:l"io,t? 3S :::1 m,r:')·~- sh,11 l:;." ··:,._clar•'•.·; v::i<l on ~my ·;£ tht2 f •_1--:>h:inr ··rvunis \-.,hich :1r2 _)rOVL:t~ b, th,J s;~.i~f,:-::~i-r: ,,:- t~h: c0urt, ns'tm..::ly - (h) (c, t1•:in-c-'.)rr-:-,1.;_,ir1c:: ,.·ith ti1<.:, :ir.)visi.)ns cf thi~ .·,c': ·: .,.~,i:in1J t.., ,l=cti.)n, if it ~: pt.=3r _; t.13t th2 ,il ,cti.)n was n·•t cc,n:iuc~2ci in acc0rja:1c:} with t:12 ;:-,rincipls:;s l2i,i J.Jwn in such p~•,visi•>:1s .::>n'i that such n,Jn- comr. ~l :if?.'=.::. .:~r--=_~-'i the result Of th.:· _,J. .. -::1:::_0:·1: 11 • i ,J affected th-2

rc:'sult of tbs , 1 cti•.:.n; i t w,.·ul.:1 b2 n.:?c.:?ss:iry Of TimotheO Lyaruu 500 pdrscns ware rr-~s~nt; ~-· --. 3t th2 _,rallies where slvgans on mot:Jr v,~hicles w-.:'t\.; jispL,y ii, ·'I- . inei estimate of numbers of p""upl.a pr12s ,nt vic1s •Jiv::n '-:iy 3.·1y i ' Obviously, in the :3hsence :)f c_,viricnce .. ·fwe ,? will make an exccptivn in this figure, say~ norninAl num½~r of 2,oor. -~---.:.-~---- ••••• / 34 --500---- persons were pr:s·.nt; at Keni Church, 1,30( ·., ·,< -r-:s2r.t ;:in:1 .at the-1:amp-ign at the Usseri Church by R _v. I-Ci l=i S'o::'.":l, 1, 3CC ;:),.:rs~,ns ·---- . were pre sent. In view c,f the fact that Mr. Mr.:imba ha:: ,,,;on :)y a margin of 22,340 votes, ev}~ if an 3djustment is m~da of the 5,640 p •rsons who w2r<2 invc~"-.:i in the_ illa9:ll ca111paigns by transf arring thvse vet~ s tc- hr. Ngal 3i, ~. Mramba would still t~ 12ft wit~~ v~ry siza~l2 majority. In the circumstances it cannot be saict that the acts of non-comrli .~ncc--, ·.vi ch the provisions of th'= 1985 Elections .\ct in tt-.., f.:,r:-· 1 >f illeg-,l campaigns conducted by er on behalf of i·ir. Mramb=1 h:id affec tad the result cf the elc:cti1_;n in t.=rms 0f section 108( 3) (c) ----·--·-· . nullj..fying the election to P;,.rlia:-nent c,f . ,r. Mr~mb:1, We co~firm the said election. We aw~rct t~e Rppcllants . here an1 below.