19701127 TZHC Mwanza3

Utti PSI pUU fl'VI HJI1OA flTV ;O SlOqrioU t.TM pOTUUckt000'a Gsriott sctt qJ p IOdCL' t jixtth ot. '(T7a) ixii o. Ptpt000j circ oo;;j oKp.noax pxc:; ;o 0I3 et out A.cI SUT poi tw'i UOt[M I0SILITS Lkxrqqou 6 010;OJ0T;t 'SM aitj ti0i43iptXflC xtotq. 'O SU0T0fl00 03I t0OI 10J UTtCftIO o sioot;;cyoictqnoox P:.: 103 -.rnistur.xod oq.0 s ç uoço-çpsm 3ttUiT uT1qpA i0t1 '1 T aipçaocs iEqoT.iq. por u0uT1 duOo otp. o1ot oxc etq. ).JIOA00 0W3 UPT0CitI30 U0I!p000 OUI 1,t3001 10; I1O 0S fl?O0rI trt0J ;o sloctou ;)ttO 1odctE ot. 10140 otq. 14tM ''tuj aTocIdo ot. L961 j oquooacl -LlqZT otq uj otip 1Tot4 PTI S. q.n1;Op O-I t'0OT 014 -qun p000STUO0 oq p1flOtG j -jnp 031 T1T oq. uPuoeq 3T4130 ;o sptot Suotonxsutponss rcOUflOQ L961 uT q.lJqq sI c'ctlJ (TTounoo 014 11 3 2tIT010LI) TTOUfl0 D piq.s BI1 to aq. q S3{J0[a 513 poiVo1dt oM3x1Joctct13 o&q, IoqgO atiq ptV3 IOOpJ OAtfl00X pi 13 513M tuM qu3OctcI13 ot U09'301 iE •'°-' I 'OS 10; U0S0 Au p-ZA.I0S0J pW3 SlOplO ptI SO0t10'. Otfl, OPTS? 1?S 'U0T0TAU00 1t014 PO51 i 413znog xI.I 'Jou1o4'T S. !)otu'301 otp. iq po1oddns q0u pu1313qoCur0n, ..ITT '1suro o JI'2°I 814 Rq ponPxc jc - ql3 OIEA\ tIOTLTM STl3 Odde J0t 2rç1Ta0q 0q;j 18p10 ptro ouequos 'uoq.ouoo tq4uçaPs L1fl0D stql. o. poCodds icoqj u-c2idnoa o o. uostioduoo uç —/oo6T' Aad o. po.xepio OS113 -MOM - iOt 8P13 ;o t138ic Ai;—m0; JOAO c; o ptrno; so oq S13 qou 513/A tu 13Aj .u1tedd13 Otfl. nq 40xS mo; —.tioq. ;o jiorT.tisTLmd talOCtiOO pOpISMl3 'U013TpP13 tVC O18/ oue3n pra tOSTI straTioc'ct'a OT I138 OOILfl. ;o IiIOq X0fl14S Ot[q. 0. pO0L19t13S 133LA t{013j 91'Ct13 3 o poo Tiami 014 JO 93 pU13 ege, StX00Ds 0. Sjmxquoo I-J°14 Ot4D mo pe.auoo pu m' PX5LIO 818M o';U92Cp 0/s toqu Ts.I 0/s 1out 6 133U131c T10L113IT ttdeso - S rrodd 01 0 b27 'XciII)Ii UTITMIM12 UOt!I IOSJflt opoj i13uo,r otq. ;o 9U13 09Z 35/a q;eT4oT413 a ;o sqiiioo ç .............................. oIrrrnapJ SflSIOA (a1ooir TJ?II±'I1O) jq 1 Ic3r' • • • • ' iv aiw () ( ('1jIIt.Ivc.I I!Df)iI Hit.cr (i) .(o13;st?o:.r uoptsaj ''bs .13q13 'J amo;oq 13taOsni.J JO 1t'0Q qTtS 0LT JO 6961 3D °N 05133 113tIttTtI3 TStITPTIO) oo oL6I io 60 "oi.i TTrJrT UotqotpStmf 0p3[reCtCt7 112 TTI1I ITJT TIjrizilV1 O iJ1OD J33II 2L LI fw about his local rate. He said he told him that he had already raid his tax and that althouh he showed him his local rate tickets for 1966 and 1967, the apuellant Nyantika insisted that he should accompany him to the clerks (the two appellants) and that ho should take his cattle with him there as well. He said the appellant 1-ysiTtika then toc.: six heads of cattle and they went 'teL - ether to the landrover where the clerics were. But, he sd, before aoir, to the clerks, they passea through another villaro where, cdn, the appellant Ilyantika took anothn six heads of cattle from another person. He said that he was then left with the appellants I:Isai and iono. He said that the appellant Eyantika took the six heads of cattle for tax purposcs Thereafter the appellant Pyantika went further to other houses but 110 Vies speared in his neck when he was at the house of one Salioaj he nas ccxriecl back to the vehicle. As a result of this incident, :;tisor± said, confusion followed because a person called Nzako Liarv:e, who held a 'un, threatenel them that he woulh shoot all the akuryie since one of them had speared the ard Executive Officer, and everybody ran away in fear. he said he ran away for his life leavin; behind his six heads of cattle. Since that day, ho,had not seen his cattle, which he assessed were valued at OWN& and he repeated the matter to the police subseguently. He also said that since that day he had not soon his local rate tickets for the years 1966 and 19671 Inter aim, in cross-examination, he said that he did not know what liappefloc after he had run away and that because of the confusion thcrc was nc time to ask for his cattle. Libiki (P.h.2) said that he too was approached in a similar manner • by the appellant ITyantika. He said ho was also told to take his huada of cattle a1thcu he had informed the appellant ITyaratika that he ha already paid his local rate. Howo\'er, ho said, the appellant iTyaine told him he should take his local rote tickets with hiu, if he had any, to show to the clerks. He said he did as he was told. He also tostified to the confusion which followed after iTzoko had threatened to s-hoot the Takuryets'. Since that day, he has not received his cattle back. He saiL. that drinhe confusion "the cattle were taken away. He alloded that the appellants drove away their cattle, but he aloe cid that whtr. they were threatened they ran away and that they did not s- ca whet happened after they had run away. L;ain he claimed that after they had run away for a distance, they stopped ane saw the aapeliants drive away their cattle. From this evidence, it is very doubtful whether this Witness hod really seen what happonad to their - cattle after they had run away in fear. If he had s-eon what happened, he wculd not have wavered as he did in his evidence.. It seems to me thet the most p.--- -. 3°T O!Tn tOA tT1OT. tT4IP.\ 0 14tO itXC )3f-'n nou Q1j) I0LI .LTq. PtXV ITdSott eqq o. trrq otip o. pq Jotj ocqs popuno o ut q.x2noq ::utoq UjT. L3It0Ct3 -IM3S Otq t93t PPS 0H S0tM uoçq. -oOSOJXt CLp, JC PDThTT'J S 0OTLIOA oqq. q3 q.qnoq e -Eq4 -aO IrX3 008 OU PT 0Lj43LT. 'JOAT )0OLt 0 0 o?pe Otiq. Oq. OSO]0 per3ci S3M qOqM '310Tt13A OTTqo ocklo:jnhT TT0d eqq qqtt pouratio.i eq pt's eq te.r 1 0[OtX12 0qL11 aAolp 101-. Yt12S Ot[ 6 1o:0OI 0tT.I '.&OUOuI OqJ31 112001 oqn uç'aei lOq_ Sq0T0ç. 1001 penso ot 0.I0tM 09T10t S U12i 112E10CM12 otq q poo eq q€.q put 'u?;Tadzto STlotqOOTIoO oqx too1 10; qJICM tT3TqM dnoi 0I. Ut UOCq l2t[ Ot 12tfl 01129 t12S 00U0,0p STLj U •saqT1 eq txeoiqeq ;oqq. oT412onuor.boaj JO esnt?oOq 09012 tIrtee; ITt 0L p1128 eq 'trrLtnjT 12 SWA Ot[ PT12 8 OH •-ctrT.Inkra- qstrpe eso Ut12.I30 12 80 tj 12LInj12 10 12iXr1Yfk3;' p1112 çunuo' uooMqioq STuTeo; ITT ootq. esnooq i: uTTE0n o.xe. olcioed osot p1128 0J 110qq tto.IJ tIOt aITAOt( pcçuop 0 (9 1a) t10rJI P' ( . a:) Tcil (i.a) iIST:i 10 sasnoLl Ot[. on nuai.i eq -12wi. pOTIXOP Cl-I 0 sriotosuootifl - '- 0J-Oqt :tdsoq o. uoAT.I) 812M eq pL112 .IOAolptt3T Ot. on [012q ueqoq. 012I: Ott O12OCt$ t1OflC -puqr cul J0j12 pç128 3H ojoadsoa stq. Ut OOUOptAO Sill .Z0201 O. S,113z3soocu nou ST t-T 4 t30c163 TW- Jo sosodxnd oiln iog 'qxq uq x.cts q12 1t.ur pouoctd12q 12qi ç'ep ac peut2ctxO °H v'6'11T - ccS u0.x; rooT pU12I:tCp ot ouo? P12q OH 912M 'ac1 30 oSnoq oq. qo Ott E11OLpA I-ttI- PPS °H 'UTq tfl-tM 0.IOM 9tU3T10ClCt12 oin leqq.o eqti q12qq L961 '1oq:t000c tcT otq uo u2çoctrsao oo.x TuDol uo 's.xoqo tfl--cM 'cuoP eq qq ots qu12 q.xxa0cict12 ei.. 'eoue;op '-'°' 5 Ttt Ui 1201J STtt UITDA U3ç12dte120 uoç.00r[oo O12J rJooT STq U0 U0/S 12[C u12icjr trtocicto oqq uOqM 00112 SIll UT OU 812M eq PT- 31-i Sit00 0t oq. 04120 OtT pUOS pUiJ S1OO) 0!L01 TCO0 oT.q120 jo 8p120'q OZICS otp 'TTotmo otjq. jo icqç.xoqno oAO ueqt. 'S0U10U0S Lt3qinoo OT.fl. oq quOS ST Oq 6 0121 [1300] TT-T JZ3C1 oq p01123: C3.IOc 1LD 31 n12LTn nilloo TtT1l OIT. poq 0M 12q-M 112131111 30 00110p.0 0U. 0JO. '8OSSOUTM i10pU00OS 10t0 iq pot..ioctctns SOM ODUOpTAC .ITDtfl. )12J SOS5OU2L1 TOCtcout.Ict eseqq ;o OOUOPTAC 01fl 0. U0T.Tpp12 I •iZo 1113.1 cu AqIA SIM nctln ptte oqs-urt? ;o punos 12 pootj eq qoo; UT 1tT p1129 SSOtM STttL qtr3edCt13 CtTq q.PA POUTOUOI 8q.epT1. aoetq 13LIq. pUO 83J010 eqq uCA-ç t0u ajom sooq. e.e.t t'3 001 STtt qnq eTtrtoA eqq. Qr U SqJX;T0CtCt12 o,4 I0IjnO OLVL On IOAO 7L)3pt.t2t eie )uo U3[TU12Ic1 TI0CtC[12 Otq. cC UO:T3. 01OL 00. 0p40 sçq t13qq pIes (9 .a) TJo3r:i •EY["9U0 2D sp13Otj 1Oqq. O. pOt10C.d13q 1211M !A0W1 q.ou P1') RDT 1129 :ç.iOsçq Sq POUTI3TCIXO 913 912M peuoctcteq q)3qM eqrqoicl c... - - 'J hUgOflgO, in affimod evidence as well, said that his duty was to sit in the vehicl cud issue tickets to local rate paycrs,-and that he not leave the vehicle to follow the apncllcnt Nyantika Ho doniod that they took any cattle with thou when they loft to take Pyentikr to hospital. He also said that he did not see any cattle brought at the vehicle where he was • In support of the appeflant, the driver (iflsanbwa, D. :.6) said that he was the one who drove the rc-lovrnt landrover, and that no cattle were brought at the place vihore he aake his vehicle'. He said that it was the appellant Nyaatika and his TYL members who wont across a river to arTost local rate defaulters. On this evidence, the learned nogistrate cane to the conclusicu that cattle h.d been taken from the complainant. I tnJJlk the learned reagistrate was entitled to cone 'to this finding, end the learned counsel appearing, for the appellants on c'npal d±d not sock to challenge 'this finding. He•.. found the prosecution WitneSs reliable end he accepted their evidence. Ind ha cone to the conclusion that the appellant Nyantika was the one who had seized the cattle and handed thou over to the appellants LiSal anC.. siugongO. On the evidence on record, the learned magistrate's finding on this cannot be disturbed. It is justi-fied by the evidence. He then turned to the question of fraudulent intcnt on whi oh the 1 earned counsel for the appellant addressed him. The learned magistrate cane to bhe conclusion that there was intent to defraud in that the appell ants seized noro cattle that would be adequate for the claicod local rate. He found as a fact that the conplincnts had paid their local rate for 1967 and thorofcrc the seizing of the heads of cattle were not justified' lie. won.ered f: six heads of cc.ttleshould be seized for a local rate of .55/— only t from each complaint'. He also found that the seized heads of cattle were not returned to the complainant, and that it is only the appeilcu:ia. who could toll where they had taken the heads of cattle to. The main around of appeal was that there rias no evidence at all that the aepc-llants were the ones who stole the heads oi cattle. In the ensuing confusion which followed the wounding of the appellant Nyantika, it was not known who had taken the cattle. On this issue he relied on the facts as led by the prosecution itself. It will be recalled that the heads of cattle were alleged to have boon taken 'to landrover, whore the other two appellants were, by the appellant Nyantika, but in the confusion which followed bocauso ci the 'threats, or the shots made by Nzoka, everybody ran away. Two oZ the couplainanla. said clearly that they did not see vthaG happened after t -ilcy had run away, while the third complainant wavered on the issue as I have already pointed out. If they did not see vbat happened to 'their cattle '4 they could not reasonably claim that the appellants must have their cattle end drove away with them. The evidence shows that there. were many people who had 6athe red ter the spearin o f the appellant Nyantika and any one of these people could have carrieeanay. This takinr was possible after the uncalled for threats nad.e by iTZakC) a6nirist ner:ibers of \';akurya tribe which caused many people to run a'a: - It cannot, therefore, be sid that, in all circuns;ancos of the caee the appelleirs nust have been the people who had taken anay the of cattle. As ±'or the question of fraudulent intent it seems tc Le that this w a s not justified by the evidence. The fact that more valuable cattle were collected than the required an.ount of .55/- for local rate, did not mean the -takinC. was ipso facto done wi -tie inter:. to defraud As it was ±iven in evidence by the complainants themselym: that their cattle Were takon for local rate purposes, i is unconviri- cind to say that it was done with an improper motive. It seems to be the idea was to hold the cattle as a forn of pressure to the tax defaulters to pay their due local rate if they had not yet paid it It nay well be that the complainants had already their 1967 local rates as they claimed, but the c'cuty of the appellant Nyantika, as it was shown, vhs to take such people to the other appellants i.Iu€onlo S and Msai whose duty was to check them and release than if they discovered that they hait in fact paid their localrates. There can be no doubt that it is sliahtly difficult to explaii :;'hy six heads of cattle should be led away for a n mere claim of .55/-9 but this nifht have been seen as adequate pressure, ±'ith due respect,to the led:cmo( nafistrate, intent to defraud, as per section 258(2) of the Penal Co, --. was not proved in this case beyond reasonable doubt The lacamed State Attorney declined to support the conviction and I think on 600d 6- rounds. In the result, the appellants were acquitted end discher6ed as I have already explained. Delivered in Court at hwanza on 27th November, 1970. (z. ii. L1-Kiy) ACTIiT. JTJDCE.