19721208 TZHC Dodoma2

I.. • • ° orç.1rn IOU uio nr'az. tr Tc[oref-Cu TpTLp3tEfl oçpu oqiiio 'i ouota u U*'lNl Q-l3uJ-eaTT T'c Gbl 2uudllj ei2undjj nqqs 'o TU nqqis - u () çd 011 JUUdM 13LI Upt 3LmOCTTT& tT?fl TflSt OEA t000qS WLITTT () nqqss -' T;OrH TTttStU OCITA E4OLA. 9 TULEO. i3Z TZOU U TTTqt! pfnptrnq 3U çiu ouou opou TS3utTT 3U OC[U!0CI1U OCTTI3 T[1UI 1flJf UIOSIDJ —spet ;iesc 19'4e OifL OS20 Stt[ fuqzreorl °'P,- oodsaIsTp o. uoçuou tra p1oeq JO40[ STLI T O sqJtoUoo etj ;T iuo prici oq ozo;o.iotj; pinoo oi 'topup ocq tnottq. 1oq.oi OtlOr pOSFJEcI tr8TCocTd 01 OUtT, 0LI UO 2tIT0 SuTp0000icI i -rotpnC ou sa ezOL 1 .10; pooptrç e0E:i0.1 .cxeA sati p -rp ot q, tt krt q cm UT 0ecIS01STp POPTOWT Ptr pinoo posnoo'e oq TTTqTSocI Ot 1fl00 e O00CIS0JSTp 0 poptteqrç 51211 q.012 otq. r3ti UA0L(S sq oor P12t1 T 'uetP.. tISAS Orllg u-q4s q.xnoo oq, otp.i suop sa& ROPITTtilT no.xtj st ;o Juçssd st ;ç cItaeuoo ;o 012 i u30q OAl2t71 pfl0 -I • EO0O.I UT 51211 n anoo etq. UOt[1.1 otiop SL'A S13 tbflU 513 ui: q.inoo eqn, ;o Sfl0flCTLTIOO..UO0 ueoq eA13tj ou pnoo oqflCT otj ;o lOqUOtI ie O. otjq. LrçSS12t TO qo st .SLFELITTS PtPUfltI o.T; LtTPO 00 O .0tt 0L11 .10 StU0ti YS .10; weuuosT.1citrc oq sqç T U12 '.1uou'2euepsçu1 T UO33 10 pl3t[ tFçecjSç UTP0O0O.1CT t- ous uotji o.Io;ocL uos.1ecii trs o io )utpseoo .xcT T12T0TPU 1t713 09r 1 0 ~11SZMIG 'wnoIra:NI 3° 012 .1sU.0 Jft112 Tcioo 0t11 uos.iscl .&tr —: SlaLfl. 8p130.1 tori opo T1moa etp. JO (T)(I.)-I4 u0po0s .Iopun qtnotq S121i G'113LIO aill 1O4OT OtlOr 10 SU,IOLtOO OL. tITp12O1 JO.J13 XCL0O Jo clitrottoo tT11 UITL( pOZ'lStiO Ptt12 titU 1,1125 10flOOS01d Ot S1Oqt1stO STC[ oq. p0.It01 P ire pOtLIfl0Cp12 T13T.I 0L[1 UOtTfl. OTTcLflt otjq. :0 oqteu 12 0. 1O4OT 12 UTSS12CI tLSOS S12i St '05120 1St0tZ2 tqTA UOTXeLICtOO UT -PoTaq, %kITOCl ETOcIdJ3 Ot G TT-Udll N aJ, D ci n r oi SflS 1OJ ° LL\WTIaaV vcarnarw ftI'mvo • 'vwI.orn .r °'°;a TLI0LI12W o.1q91 .Ttt0Jt71.I JO q.Ifl0 q.0T1ST orq. ;o L6t. ;o '011 0S12J T 3 LITET1O i 2 Lr.o i~ L6L JTO ON 1V 'IVNIWflW J{1100 iIH NOIdOIaS'II1lL arVnaadv vIlociocE rY VIi.'TVZ17 O unop HDII-I 1IH1 NI If .- ) mengi ndiyo s ahabu Lungwa akawa- fundisha msuibo hayo (signature) Wafungwa uafuatao ndio wall oftindi shwa hayo ye; juu. iachuku1iwe toka jela na kuuli'zwa nahali pengine (1) Lucas Roman. th aidi (') (3) Augustino AJia. Piga sinu Singida na eleza hiyo mpango ufanye kuwaondoa katika gereza hili na kupelokwa mahali pengine. Ill uchung.izi ufanywe". The letter makes no reference to the naitrate whatsoever. The only person involved in the judicial proceeding it refers to is the prosecutor Mr. Lungwa. In his letter the appellant complains that Mr. Lungwa taught the IDroSecUtiOli witnesses what to say during his case. This accusation, if unfounded 9 could be disrespectful of the prosecutor. The relevant law however concjrns itself with disrespect to the magistrate. If the allegation against the iosecutor was disrespectful at all, anclit is open to question whether it was, the appellant could not be convicted as charged for the reason that the person disrespected was not the magistrate hearing the appeflent s case Perhaps it couJ..d be argued that because in his letter the appellant sought the transfer of witnesses from the local jail, he was interfering with judicial roceed.ings. That line of argument would only hold if the member of the public to whom the letter was handed had the legal authority and power to 'eet the request. Tho record is silent whether this person who vias j ointly charged with the appellant had any such power. And if he hae, such power then he would be intending to commit a different type of of:ence altogether, not contempt of court. In his judgment the learned magistrate found as follows: "he first accuz ed seen handing the letter to the second accused immediately after the court had been closed . The letter was tall:ing against the case. in hand, criminal case No. 80/7 2 which the first accused was charged with, and the letter was contained with fictious (sic) statements against the case in haid". With great respect it cannot be "to mislead justice and to interfere the court dignity" (sia) for an accused to make "statements against the case be they false or true statements. Indeed, everytine the accused makes his defence he has to spca'.: against the case or adduce evidence to the end. 'lliat they law iorbids is disrespect to the magis -Grate, not againsc the case • Alter all a case has no personalty to which contempt could be directed0 And if any disrespect be shown to the magistrate, it must be shown that such disrespect is intentional. This is all settfld law and one of the many amthorities on the point is PATEL Vs R 1969 E.A. '55 There was no evidence in 'this case that disrespect was shown either to the magistrate or during the time when.the trial was being conducted. The trial court itself did not find, so and 'the' evidence wa±'ants no such finding. Before concluding I, would refer, to one aspect of this case which is rather irksome. ' It is unfair to /7 .. ; ) 3- pile up charges against.: au. accused person; but when the accused has obvious]i invited trouble, then ,justice has to be done Be that as it may, it would appear to be rather, oppressive to sadC.le the accused with a charge of contempt when he is fighting to avert the fate pf' losigii his freedom. It was fortunate for the accused in this case that the evidence led at his trial did not dis- close the of:eice with which he was charged. Otherwise he could have suffered additional punishment.. Accordingly, his appeal must succeed. The conviction for cont.eiipt is quashed and the sentence thereof set aside0 The appellant who is understood to be held in another coimexion should be absolved from serving the terra imposed on him in in particular this case DODOI'IA M • H • A. K1JIKIILA. 8th December, 1c;72. AG. JUDGE S.