for upload TANZLII final Judgment BARIKI SAMWEL LAIZER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA IN THE SUB-REGISTRY OF MOSHI AT MOSHI CRIMINAL SESSIONS CASE NO. 29 OF 2021 THE REPUBLIC VER SUS 1. BARIKI SAMWEL LAIZER @ MASAI 2. JOHN VALERIAN KIONDO JUDGMENT 7th & 14th May 2024 A.P.KILIMI, J.: Bariki Samwel Laizer @Masai and John Valerian Kiondo hereinafter “first and second accused person respectively” stand charged with the offence of Murder contrary to section 196 of the Penal Code Cap 16 R.E. 2019. It is alleged by prosecution that on 18th day of November ,2020 at Weruweru river area Narumu village within Hai District in Kilimanjaro region the accused did murder one Rehema Yahaya Shabani. Both of the accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charged offence. 1 The brief background relating the accused persons and the death of Rehema Yahaya, it was on that fateful date at around 21:00 hours the first accused person was seen being accompanied by the deceased, they both approached a shop owned by Dominic Luka Chami. While there, they bought some drinks and continue with their affairs, on the next date early morning the body of Rehema Yahaya was found floating at Weruweru river. The incidence was reported to village leader who also informed police, Police officers attended the scene of crime and later took the body to Hai District hospital where an autopsy was conducted and revealed cause of death was due to severe bleeding and traumatic head injury. Upon investigation of the matter, the above two accused persons were arrested, interrogated and charged as stated above. When this matter came for hearing, the prosecution was represented by Ms. Rose Sulle and Ms. Emma Luena both State Attorneys, whereas the first accused person enjoyed the legal aid of Mr. Modestus Njau and for second accused was Mr. Elisante Kimaro both learned advocates. 2 To prove the offence above, the prosecution lined up total number of seven witnesses, namely; Grace Zakayo Lyatuu Assistant Medical Officer ‘PW1’; Aristid Khalfan ‘PW2’, Albert Thadei Tarimo ‘PW3’, Deogratias Lugaenda ‘PW4’, Yahaya Shabani Mwali ‘PW5’, G499 D/CPL Miraji ‘PW6’ and F.971 Sgt. Gaudence ‘PW7’ together with two documentary exhibits, a Postmortem Examination report ‘PE1’ and witness statement of Dominic Luka Chami ‘PE2’. In defence side both of the accused fended themselves on oath and had no witnesses. Briefly, led by prosecution Attorney, PW2 said on the early morning of 18/11/2020 at around 05:45 hours while going to his daily activities at Narumo village. He passed at Weruweru river and saw what he thought was a log floating in water. He decided to get closer to see what kind of log was that as it appeared whitish in colour. He then discovered that it was a human body. Being shocked rushed to call the nearby neighbours one Alex Augustino Mboya and his wife, he then returned with them at the scene. PW2 then left them there and went to call a village chairman ‘PW3’ who also attended the crime scene and reported the incidence to police station. PW2 further stated that many people gathered, further said when police officers arrived, removed the body from river and place it on dry 3 land, people revealed it was the body of a girl called Rehema a child of Yahaya. PW3 said when he arrived at the scene after being informed by PW2, he called the police who responded the call, further stated after the body was removed from water, he was 10 paces away thus he did not observe how much the body was affected. PW3 testified further that he knew the accused persons as his resident in the village. In cross examination, PW3 responded that he got the information of a burned house of Yahaya the deceased father before the information of incidence of death of the deceased. He further stated that the fire happened around 09:00 hours. Deogratias Lugaenda ‘PW4’ a retired police officer testified that he got the information about a murder case of Rehema Yahaya from OC CID Fredrick Mamunyu who wanted to find other police officers to go with him to a crime scene. PW4 then took five other police officers and went with them to Horoli village at Weruweru river. They removed the deceased body from water and put it to a dry land. PW4 continue to testify that the body was naked as it was wearing a dress with no under pants, on back of her head there was a wound bleeding and saw that it was caused by a blunt object, her nose and mouth were bleeding. Then the body was taken to a 4 house of her father one Yahaya whose house was reported to be burnt a day before the search, they inspected the burnt house and found underpants on the floor and took it for further forensic investigation. He also said those pants belonged to the deceased and were taken to the forensic expert. Thereafter the body was sent to Hai District Hospital. PW5 the father of deceased being led by Ms. Rose Sulle learned State Attorney testified that on 17/11/2020 around 09:30 pm being on the way to his neighbour one Joachim Chama to look for his children, he met one Nyerere who was carrying two bottles of water, he did not know what contained in those bottles. Upon reaching to Joachim Chama’s house, he heard an uproar coming from his house; he rushed back and found his house was in fire. He raised an alarm and people gathered for help. PW5 testified further that he reported to the village chairman who informed the police. He also reported that night his child Rehema (the deceased) was nowhere to be found. Then he and one Chibori Frednandi Chami searched for her in the neighbour’s houses with no success. It was until the morning of 18/11/2020 when he was informed by one Aristid Alphan Malya ‘PW2’ that his child was found dumped on the river. He rushed to the scene where he identified her daughter while already dead. 5 PW6 police officer also from investigation team attended the scene of crime, reiterated what PW4 said above, but further added that they discover a small knife brown in colour nearby the house of deceased father, and said further all evidence collected thereat were taken for forensic testing, but that DNA failed to coordinate its findings due to the fact that water played a huge role in destroying evidence as it fails to read which DNA belongs to whom. When crossed by Mr. Njau he said accused persons were taken mouth swap for DNA test and the sample did not read the accused persons compared to sample collected as said above. PW7 is the police investigator who testified that he wrote the statement of Dominic Luca Chami, who told him that the night which later the deceased was found dead in the morning, the first accused went to his shop with the deceased and bought her a ‘MO’ energy drink. Upon buying they went away, PW7 stated further that later he went to fetch water at a stream, he again saw the deceased with the first accused walking to another area. He then left them alone and, in the morning, he heard that the deceased was found in the water dead. PW7 testified further that he read to him what the witness said and thereafter signed. PW7 stated further that as per the chairman of Oroli where the witness resides, he was 6 nowhere to be found as he shifted from the village to Morogoro Region and was not even found by his phone numbers .PW7 then tendered the witness written statement which was admitted as exhibit PE2. In defence case Bariki Samweli Laizer ‘DW1’ defended that on 17/11/2020 he was at Peter Temba shop taking a soft drink, then one man called Peter Ismail joined him and told him that there was a problem in his street. They went together to the incidence where they found the house was burnt. There at they saw village chairman and stayed there until 00:00 where everyone went away and for him, he went to sleep. In the morning, he heard an alarm being raised that there was a body found in the river. DW1 joined the people attending the alarm and went to the crime scene. There he saw a body floating, later he saw police attending the scene and removed the body and sent to Yahaya’s house which was burnt. It was until 21/11/2020 being where he resides, Police officer arrested him and charged him of murdering Rehema Yahaya. In cross examination DW1 denied giving any statement to any police officer, denied buying drink to the deceased and that he only knew the deceased on street. 7 The second accused person John Varelian Kiondo ‘DW2’ testified that on 18/11/2020 doing his activities he heard the people passing on the road saying that there was a body found in the Weruweru river. He went to the main road and saw many people going to Weruweru river. He joined them and upon reaching there, he saw a body floating in water. Later police officers came and removed the body from water and took it to her father’s house which was already burned. DW2 further said on 20/11/2020 he fully participated at the burial of the deceased. Later on, 26/11/2020 at night being home he was arrested by police officers and sent him to Bomang’ombe Police Station. In his further testimony, DW2 stated that he did not know the first accused as he only knew him by sawing him on the streets. He denied killing the deceased and stated that this was a cooked case to him as there were no any witness who testified to see him committing the offence. According to the offence of murder which is charged against the accused persons its wording creates fundamental elements which must be proved in order to sustain conviction; first; death of the deceased, secondly; that the death was unnatural, thirdly; that death was caused by 8 unlawful act or omission of the accused and fourthly; that the killing was actuated by malice afore thought. However, I am mindful where the charge involves more than one accused the court may see whether there was common intention. (See the case of Republic vs Filbert s/o Arobogast and Another [2021] TZHC 7424 (TANZLII) In view of the above ingredients, now issues which I should consider are; first; Whether the death of the deceased Rehema Yahaya was unnatural, second; Whether the death was caused by unlawful act or omission of the accused persons, third; Whether there was common intention among the accused persons to execute an unlawful purpose and fourth; Whether the killing was actuated by malice aforethought. To start with the first issue above, according to the prosecution witnesses’ testimonies above, there is no dispute the death was unnatural, the same was justified by one Aristid Khalfan (PW2) who saw the corpse of the deceased floating in the river Weruweru and reported the incident before the body was evacuated from the water. Another witness is Grace Zakayo Lyatuu, (PW1) Assistant medical officer who conducted an autopsy on the body of the deceased. She examined the body and saw the body 9 having injury on her head and concluded that the cause of death was due to severe hemorrhage from the head, she also tendered a post-mortem examination report which was admitted without objection as exhibit PE1. Therefore, according to the above evidence, I am settled, the first issue is answered squarely that the death of the deceased was unnatural. In respect to the next issue, whether accused persons are responsible to the cause of death. As briefly shown the evidence of witnesses above, no any witness saw anybody either killing or throwing deceased in that river. Thus, I am of the opinion there is no any direct evidence. Therefore, in view thereof, it is common ground that the case against the accused persons is entirely based on circumstantial evidence. In that regard I find pertinent in analyzing the evidence tendered to be guided by the basic principles governing reliability of circumstantial evidence as discussed in the case of Jimmy Runangaza v. Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 159B of 2017 [2018] TZCA 188: (TANZLII), when the Court stated that: “In order for the circumstantial evidence to sustain a conviction; it must point irresistibly to the accused's guilt. (See Sim on M usoke v. 10 R epublic, [1958] EA 715). Sarkar on Evidence, 15th Ed. 2003 Report Vol. 1 page 63 also emphasized that on cases which rely on circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the following three tests which are: 1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilty is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established; 2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused; and 3) the circumstances taken cumulatively should form a chain so, complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and no one else." (See also Shaban Mpunzu @ Elisha Mpunzu v. Republic [2004] TZCA 3 (TANZLII). Abdul Muganyizi vs Republic [1980] TLR 263; Protas John Kitogo & Another vs Republic [1992] TLR 51 and Hamidu Mussa Themetheo &. Another vs Republic [1993] TLR 125); John Shini vs Republic [2020] TZCA 1747 (TANZLII). For convenient of evidence tendered, I wish to start on whether the second accused person is connected in the commission of the offence 11 charged. I have considered the entire evidence of the prosecution; in my view no evidence touches him. I am saying so because it was only in cross examination administered to the investigator of the case one Deogratias Lugaenda (PW4) who said the second accused was mentioned by Dominic Luka. Nonetheless, Dominic Luka did not turn up to testify before this court, but his statement was tendered in accordance to section 34(B) (1) (2) (a) and (e) of Evidence Act CAP 6 R.E 2022 because he was not found, the same was admitted as PE2. Although the weight of this statement will be discussed later in this judgment, it suffices to say, first; PW4 contradicted himself, being a witness who did not write the statement of the witness, in the first place when crossed by Mr. Elisante Kimaro said he don’t know about the case of John Varelian, also said he can’t know his participation since in investigation nowhere any witness mentioned the second accused person. But in re-examination PW4 said Second accused was mentioned by first accused. Second; PW4 testimony is in contradiction with F.971 Sgt Gaudence (PW7) who actually wrote the said statement, PW7 when asked by Mr. Elisante Kimaro has this to say; 12 “Also, the statement does not mention the second accused, one cannot be joined without being mentioned by anybody, I can’t say that no evidence touched second accused, because I am not investigator of this case.” In view of the above, I am satisfied the above is material contradictions between the two prosecution witnesses which discredit on pointing fingers to the second accused person. However, to cement that the same does not exists, the said statement (PE2) was read in open court, nowhere it mentioned the second accused person therein. Moreover, no any forensic evidence to connect the second accused person with the deceased. Moreover, in respect to whether there was any common intention, in his own words Deogratias Lugaenda (PW4) as investigator when cross examined by Mr. Elisante Kimaro said; “I did not succeed as investigator to know the accused sat and planned the killing. No evidence of any communication of planning to kill the deceased I got in my investigation”. In the upshot of what I have highlighted above, it is my conclusion that the second accused person is not caught in the web of conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence. In the result, I hereby found him not 13 guilty for the offence of murder charged and I acquit him forthwith with this offence charged, further I proceed to order immediately be set free, unless he is otherwise lawfully in prison. Back to the first accused person, according to the prosecution evidence there is two version of evidence touching him, first is the evidence of F.971 Sgt Gaudence (PW7) a police officer who wrote the statement of one Dominic Luca Chami and the second is the statement itself of Dominic Luca Chami (PE2). In the first version as said, PW7 wrote the statement of Dominic Luca Chami, his evidence is important because, being the maker or author will always be better placed to explain what the document is all about, its intricacies, and whatever relating to the said document, taking regard, he was examined and cross-examined on the said document in this court. However, before I proceed further, I find appropriate to analyse on the validity and weight of the said statement (PE2). According to prosecution evidence, the said statement is a statement of the witness who cannot be found which was tendered under section 34(B) (1) (2) (a) and (e) of Evidence Act (supra). I am aware, In the case 14 of Joseph Shabani Mohamed Bay & Others vs Republic [2017] TZCA 178 (TANZLII) the court of appeal illustrated about this provision that; “A written statement by any person who cannot be called to testify is admissible in terms of section 34B (2) of the Evidence Act. Six conditions for admissibility of such a statement are stated therein in paragraphs (a) to (f). Briefly, the conditions are:- a) The maker of the statement cannot be procured without delay, b) The statement is signed by the maker. c) The statem ent contains a declaration that the sam e is true and is liable to be prosecuted if found untrue, d) A copy of it is served to each of the parties to the proceedings before the hearing, e) If none of the parties, within ten days from the service with the copy of the statement, serves a notice on the party proposing or objecting to the statement being tendered in evidence, and f) Where the statement is made by a person who cannot read it, it is read to him before he signs and is accom panied by a declaration by the person w ho read it to the effect that it w as so read.” 15 [Emphasis supplied] The Court further insisted that all the above conditions laid down in all paragraphs, that is from (a) to (f) of sub-section (2) of section 34B of the Evidence Act are cumulative and must all be met for a witness statement to be admissible under section 34B (1) and (2) of the Evidence Act Cap.6. (See the case of Director of Public Prosecutions vs Ophant Monyancha 1985 TLR 127, Shilinde Bulaya vs. The Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 185 of 2013, Fadhili Heri @ Selemani vs. The Republic Criminal Appeal No. 283 of 2011 and Twaha Ali and 5 Others, Criminal Appeal No. 78 of 2004 (all unreported). In the above import of the law, I am forced to see if the above were met before the statement by Dominic Luka Chami was tendered and received as an exhibit PE2. In my observation the deviances are as follows; first, declaration in that statement is imperfect because it was not dated, how the declaration was made it lost to be knowing when exactly the statement was taken. When PW7 was asked about not dating the same, he merely said that he overlooked to put the dated. I have considered of this answer, I think the answer is very flimsy in relation to the important of dating the said statement. In my thinking it 16 leaves a lot to be desired, for instance whether it was taken immediately after the incident or taken later at investigation stage, thus, remaining as it is unanswered, create doubts on whether it was authentic or cooked evidence by thinking all possibility. Be that as it may, none of the prosecution witness raised it in examination in chief in order to show their honest on the said missing date, but the said missing date was triggered by defence in the cross examination. In my considered opinion adverse inference cannot let the prosecution remain unshaken in this declaration, taking regard this is statutory declaration. Second; according to the evidence of PW7, he did not state in his oral evidence that the said Dominic Luka Chami knew to read or not, in my view, by not doing so he could not ascertain the requirement of section 34B (2)(f) of Evidence Act which the court in Joseph Shabani Mohamed Bay (supra) said the same must also be met. The provision requires if the statement is made by a person who cannot read it, it is read to him before he signs and is accompanied by a declaration by the person who read it to the effect that it was so read. 17 To substantiate the above, testifying on the above, PW7 in examination chief said, and for purpose of reference I reproduce his words said viva voce hereunder; “in interrogation it was the first time I saw him, Dominic told me is a resident of Oroli Narumu, we were only two, it was his area of business, we sat on the bench, before that I told him is free to say anything, and he chosed he will be stating and I will be writing, after w riting I read to him and he signed by writing his name.” [ Emphasis supplied] Having considered the above and exhibit PE2. In my view there are material contradictions in the witness statement when compared to the oral testimonies of PW7 who wrote the said statement. I am saying so, because what PW7 testified above was not shown in the statement of Dominic Luka Chami that was complied with. The fact that PW7 said that he read to the witness before he signed is not reflected therein. In the certificate he wrote only that he certifies that he has written statement of 18 Dominic Luka Chami under section 10(3) of CPA R.E. 2019, thus, for the purpose of clarity the said section provides; “10 (3) Any police officer making an investigation may, subject to other provisions of this Part, examine orally any person supposed to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case and shall reduce into writing any statement made by the person so examined.” Still in my opinion the above quoted provision does not cure the requirement of the law above which entails the statement to be read to the witness before he signed, and thereafter accompanied by a certificate by the person who read to show that it was so read as the law provides above. Therefore, in considering of the above, I am of considered view, there is no doubt that the statement of Dominic Luka Chami in respect to whether it was read to him, shows nothing to such effect. Thus, the same differs with the oral evidence of PW7 when he said in court that he read to him. I have considered this contradiction which shows PE2 vary with the 19 testimony of PW7, in my view the contradiction above is material one because it has tainted the credibility of PW7 and the validity of statement itself (PE2), therefore in my opinion both cannot be believed. In Goodluck Kyando vs. R [2006] TLR 363 it was stated that: - "It's a trite law that, every witness is entitled to credence and must be believed and his testimony accepted unless there are good and cogent reasons for not believing a witness." Basing on the above cerebrated authority, I am satisfied that the evidence of PW7 and that of PE2 as examined above cannot remain unshaken, thus cannot be believed because of the flaws shown above. The next point to be considered is what is the effect of none compliance of condition set in section 34 B (2) of the Evidence Act. In the case of Shilinde Bulaya vs. The Republic, Criminal Appeal and No. 185 of 2013, Fadhili Heri @ Selemani vs. The Republic Criminal Appeal No. 283 of 2011(unreported); the Court categorically stated that where all the conditions are not complied with the statement should be expunged or discounted. Consequently, I hereby discount its value forthwith. 20 Nevertheless, and without prejudice of the finding above, the said statement (PE2) suggests that the first accused was the last person to be seen with the deceased. I am aware the doctrine of last to be seen with the deceased presuppose on presumption that if no other explanation is given to escape his responsibility, the accused person last seen with deceased, he is the one who killed the deceased. The decision of Mathayo Mwalimu and Another vs. Republic, Criminal Appeal No 147 of 2008(unreported) CAT held that; ‘….if an accused person is alleged to have been the last person to be seen with the deceased, in the absence of a plausible explanation to explain away the circumstances leading to the death, he or she will be presumed to be the killer.” However, according to his statement tendered, the maker said, he saw first accused person with the deceased in his shop at 21:00 hours and later saw them when he was on the way to fetch water in the near stream. I have considered what he says, in my considered view his evidence is unreliable because, first; there is no dispute at that hours it is already night and thus dark hours and he did not state how was able to identify 21 them unmistakenly and second, he did not say the time on how he saw them at second time when he was on the way to fetch water. In my opinion the two incidents of seeing deceased being together with first accused leaves many questions unanswered, for instance was he using a torch or what was the source of light for him to see them unmistakenly or at what time he saw them in a second time, does that suffice that there were no any chance for deceased to meet with any other person during that unsaid time. It is a trite law that visual identification in circumstances unfavorable to human vision, that evidence must be watertight. In the case of Abdul Farijalah and Another v. R [2008] T.L.R. 7, this Court held that: - "The law is well settled that in a case involving evidence of visual identification; no court should act on such evidence unless all possibilities of m istaken identity are elim inated and that the court is satisfied that the evidence before it is w atertight” [Emphasis added] 22 (See also Waziri Amani vs R, (1980) TLR 250; R vs Eria Sebwato [1960] E.A. 174; Abdallah Bin Wendo and Another v. Rex [1953] E.A. 166) Finally, I may say, the above could have been ascertained if the maker of the said statement could have been found to testify in this court, since he did not turn up for the reason stated above, there is no room to examine his credibility and this court to see his demeanors, it is obvious the above stated left important issues unanswered. Taking regard, the issue of identification needs to be tested in considering also the credibility of the one who says he really saw and identify somebody. In Jaribu Abdallah vs R, Criminal Appeal No. 220 of 1994 (unreported), the Court of Appeal stated that:- "In matters of identification, it is not enough merely to look at factors favouring accurate identification. Equally im portant is the credibility of w itnesses. The conditions of identification m ight appear ideal but that is no guarantee against untruthful evidence." 23 (See also, Joseph Mkumbwa and Another v. R, Criminal Appeal No. 94 of 2007 (unreported). Basing on the above circumstances, in my considered view the above evidence is not enough to infer that the first accused person is guilty for the offence charged. I think there ought to have been more credible evidence linking the first accused person with the death of Rehema Yahaya. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the case against the first accused person remained to be highly suspicious. However, in a criminal charge suspicion alone, however, grave it may be, is not enough to sustain a conviction, all the more so, in a serious charge of murder. (See Haruna Mohamed and Mathew Lwali v. Republic (CAT) Criminal Appeal number 30 of 2001 (unreported). However, be that as it may, I noted that the prosecution was endeavouring to ask the first accused on whether he made a statement at police station and implicated himself that he went to the said shop that night with the deceased. I have considered the evidence tendered, the fact that the first accused person denied totally to be with the deceased at said night, but also the fact that no any statement of the first accused being cautioned or otherwise was tendered to prove him wrong, under that 24 circumstances I cannot hold that first accused person was proved to be with the deceased in the said night. In the above regard, I am inspired by the wording in the case of Emmanuel @ Magesa Chacha & Another vs Republic [2024] TZCA 295 (TANZLII) where the Court of appeal said that, it is a cardinal principle that unless otherwise stated the accused has no duty to prove his innocence at most, he can raise doubts by poking holes in the prosecution case. Equally elementary is that the burden of proof is beyond reasonable doubt and the burden never shifts except where legally stated. Also, that conviction should in no way be based on the weakness of the defence. (See also John Nkize v. R [1995] T.L.R. 213; Joseph John Makune v. R [1986] T.L.R. 44; Paulo Magendo & Ano. v. R [1993] T.L.R. 219 and John Makolobela Kulwa Makolobela & Ano. v. R [2002] T.L.R. 296 to name a few.) Next, I have asked myself is there any remaining evidence connecting the first accused person, the evidence of PW1 and PW5 revealed that the first accused person was taken mouth swap as a sample for forensic DNA test compared with samples taken from the deceased and 25 samples collected at the scene of the crime, no results were found to connect the accused person and the death of the deceased. In conclusion thereof of what I have said above, it follows therefore, that there is no other evidence incriminating the first accused person with the offence charged. Thus, I am settled circumstances which have been established did not form chain to the conclusion that the guilty of the first accused person should be touched, as it was observed in the case of Julius Justine and Others v Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 155 of 2005 CAT (unreported) when the court of appeal had this to say; "The circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established and that those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused and that the circumstances taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused and no one else. " 26 In view thereof, I am settled the prosecution has failed to prove the charge against the first accused person beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, I hereby found him not guilty for the offence of murder charged and I acquit him for this offence forthwith, further I proceed to order immediately be set free, unless he is otherwise lawfully in prison. It so ordered. DATE at MOSHI this day of 14th May, 2024 X JUDGE Signed by: A. P. KILIMI Court: - Judgment delivered today on 14th day of May, 2024 in the presence of Ms. Yasinta Peter, Senior State Attorney assisted by Ms. Phoibe Magili, State Attorney whereas in defence side, in the presence of Mr. Modestus Njau, Advocate for first Accused Person and Mr. Elisante Kimaro, Advocate for second Accused Person, also all accused person also present. Sgd; A. P. KILIMI JUDGE 14/5/2024 27 Court; Right of Appeal explained Sgd; A. P. KILIMI JUDGE 14/5/2024 28