19731213 TZHC Mwanza

IN TIU JrlT COU1?T OP TLllZlib i.T 11L11L[. Lppellato Jurisdiction Criuinal Lppoals Nos: 451 & 452 of 1 972 Oriinai Criminal Case No. C of 1972 of the Diutrict Court of Tarim Di riot at Tariric Before: P. G. G Korosso, 2oq., iostdcni 1:ia1s r etc. .1. MUnika Burure ...,......,....) Lppollonts •.'.. .Qhacne Kimoro ................) (Original Pccusud) versus" The fepub.ic ............,....... Fc.spondeit (Orijina1 Prosecutor-) JU Ti C N F N T JONLTi-iJN, J. - The appellants, Muniko Bururc and Chacha Kimoro, were charged jointly with cctt1e theft c/os. 263 and 26 of the Penal Code. They ware couricod and each duly sentenced to 5 years' imprisonment. Their ap'eals are consoliUctod. Therc is nc dispute that- tuc oxen of 'the con plainant (FW.4) wore stolen on the material macrnin-' as they were grazing. It was then the case for the p2050cutioL as doposad by FN.1 and PW.2 1 both clerks employed by the North Morn District Council which boUiit cattle for slaughter, that the appellants, were later that neriiifg found in possession -I the ca't'tic. PW.1 said he was approached by appellant Muniko who offered to .soll him two oxen which 1 h-c said, wore near the Tarime Prison. It tinapircd a that PW. 2 had just saau appellant Chache herding the oxen and thz appellant had told him that, ho and his older brother, presumably the other appellant, had been instructed by their lather to sell the cattle to pay for the medical expenses of tieir sick mothcr-. In due course d.ppollant hiluniko arrived thre followed by PW.l. Negotiations thn fc1loi-d and a price was reached for each animal. It seems to have been tic practice that the District Council would make payment only after the oat'tic hd been branded. Before this happened the complainant had coan aion: looking for his cattle and fo'ond them in the herd of cattle of the cowicil. That then led to the arrest of' tho appellants who were still around awai'ting payment. Each appellant sa -1.cl in his evidence that ho had had nothing to dc with the cattle andthat he had been arrested as he was on a journey passing through the minor settlement of Tarime. Muniko cllod one witness.1 but her evidnea did not take thcTdcfepce any further for she said she know nothing about 'the matter and d,cl not know why the court had called her. On the evidence before him the 'tr±&l magistrate had no difficulty in convicting. For my part I sac,no reason for disagreeing with this conclusion. however, Munio in hie' petition claims the- ca'ttle were in fact his and h could not prQperiy have been convicted of, stealing -. his own property. From the evidence of the complainant it would appear - Muniko is his stepLbrother, and it scams to be on such relationship that he pegs his claim. He: En3 he testified so a't the 'trial but the magistrate - 2 - :ou1J. ot i his ol. LL. I n::vc c son ±o: ..oisiking thL2 I.00I1(i is ].sc nnci Icm. uctli:.fi. c th'i th ssc 11:n Lii. ot r is: this ci.ii .. 1 r in i ri] • i_ i L sc I vL iC i 1 1 flO 1 Ii Js 1 5 155 . tr j I ri 11 rosscssion f ti. 1nd:T1 sid iris].. Hoi, PW.1 snd PW. 2 J ,T, clss:: nt rri?': jrnLinpossc ssion o ti:c ciXc is. Th: tr isi CUrt 1 1 : int:s1 si tr .Ui1. hsy s, TI: 1 t, I ISI ILl L I 1 .51 1 1. 11i and 1 youid ::c Iudc criy :;I st ion ihob Ii.: sic ol: thn I I cats L::r cthsi rcp1c citos' 1 I:. r • h:: :.p:11:nL iIiso :..c:r 5.O?C hcon iit: iiuitictsr ia tic cc !smi a: i : 11 'f Ii:c shf::ccc , : LL: a-i 1•ss i:.c : ::cucc fC]: Chch c:Iii:crctciy id n; LI 1 I 51t 'r . H ii a Ur i j. Mwnza F, II. Jo.isthar 13th Dccsrnbcr, 1973- S ua -4