19750320 TZHC Mwanza

.LT iiWAi2A. iRISDiCTION HiG OL1RT CJI1th1L Ar L M. .123 OF 1974 CF. CR. .P. No. 122/74 ORIGINAL CRIMIN;L CST NO. 122 OF 1973 02 T27 DISTRICT COURT OF K;G? DI2RICT. • . . . A T xJxit; cn. Bfr F.N. B1J13'RW, 'sq., DISTRICT M..GITIT ALPdONCtICT PPLLANT TIN TSIfl1AM NB' TIBIRIKA . ... V'rsas TH9R7 IUi3LIC • •... • •• .,• •• •• , • • ..I1ONTNT CHARG . Stri- ling CattI cnraIr.to s'Q't.ion 268 of th. Pna1 Cod,. Cap. 16 of th Laws . . S . . JUDIi''NT LUG.(iKINGIRA, AG. J.: Th' two 'p 11ntsan ancth'i (hrrin rf'rr'do i th third acctls"d) who hnot ap a1r.d ; wrnr ' oiTardwih, cattl ±hfi, Ph.first pp1ran, Tid iom T11ika, wasopnvictd.pf rcivin.c/s3II ti). of th-a PrnaI Cowhi1 th s'-'cond 3n11ant Uphonc I(i6ha'1 1 and th third acoasrd w'r convic dich.rd. UncIr the MiniEwn Sntncs Act, 19721 Tibihikawassitncc1 to 3 yar imprison nt - w hile Micha1 and th tnid accas wr srnt'nQrd to_5 ars. imp1isoninrn -t.. Hi5ha'1 and h'- third .ocus-d wr' hrdamen jt Ki'nu1 Ranch; th prorty fth'- Ntio.a1'Aricu1tar1 Cornany Lirnit.a, in Ki'3 District, Thrrws vidnc that Sptmber,. .1973 t h 5y apprichrd Tibhika and 5ff'd to sr11him a 5cw. Tibihik b'cnir -nthasitic and agr'cI. nd h'knw t1t honr 6f th'mhad cttLi of ni bwn.Th convrsaiofl rrardiñg th' sa1was. hard bY PW3 and .4who tstifid to tht. -ff'ct at th'tria1. actaal sEIX. took. p1ac two day sIar inthr bash. This tim- I4ich;1 was not pr'snt.1t was also wi±nss'd by P..49 . - S - • S •_ S..- .. - Tibihia did/nat cInr tn tränBactlön but only contniJ that h was not war' that th cw wa stoIn.proprty. .1 witiput zcord straight. Tibihika hims1f a'.imitrd in codrt:t±iah.had n'vrk&wn McFia'- 1 ani hisco1.1aato poss'ss cat1 of th'ir 5wn. Butm5rT rvaling1y,th .coq handrd t himby thn thirdThccu.sd was, slctd from a h'rd of th Rahch in his prr'srnct This was sifid to by.F.N'4, - Tibihika's brothr, who was a1oprntThnd h1p"a Tibihika :-dril e th - anlEal away. ThiE app'- flant th r- fofn knw that th cow was. sto.1n popArty. - ~ That was what th procution ws rqu.irci t5 prov, btr not -t5 prov n. thai Tiihikalo khr'w that th thft of hr animal constitutd a schdu13. off'ncr: R2b1ic V.Mohrnrd N;.wrka, (1964) B'.A. 353. Tibihik3ts conviction was thr?rfQr sound.. B fore, pocdiñg to th sconi app11ant I4icha1, I fl initd - todiscasNbfifly thr propi.ty ofTibihika' convictionundAr th Ninirn.iñ Sflt'nc-s Act invicw of thp obitr rrmarks I made last yar in .th cas.of Qonyo Obtiga V. R., (Mz) (pc) Cr. Api. No. .302 of 1973. In That - oasn I satd nra1l that rciving st5ln catt1 was. n5t a chrdu1.d fft- ncc. Th prtinnt part of m judgñnt i.h that cas ran .. as fallowsr—. - .--.:: • S..- .. "Undrr Thn repali 1a (Cap52) this of f ,, non was spcificall incIuc1'a asaschdu1doffnc andri6Aof PrtI of the chtal' thr-to In th n 1a, .howvri, •tn offnc 1s '2prss1y '-xc1acirdThs a schc1u1d offnc ..A1thoah. th ,, rq m ay b r-asonsfor unorrtainty do not think that th' courts would b justifid - 2 - in Tio1ing that r'iving stoln 6tt1 is a shrdu1c1 offnc by raon only that cattI' thft is a shhodu1nd offnc. Th irafima?i must hav had a raon to xprssly roviI. fo th off'nc in Cap.. 526 an(1to Xprssly clud th ffnc in 2.0t. No. I of 1972, which must b takn as an improvm-?it ontho fdnnf hi 1oo1dfi fOr thisrson I find that iItrn II of th First SOhothi1 to thw Act, iiig in posssSOfl of stock süspctd of having b.?i stolh contrary to 9rction 3 of th stock.Tlicft Orriinand (Cap. 422) 1 is listi.as a sohuld. offcn. ThiO off'nc • also appari in ItmI o' at III of schhul to • Cop. 526. It mut liaV ocourr-Ito th 1rofsrnan that it was a bit of 0 sOprfluity to tan bOth bmin in poSsssiofl of:stccksusp'cf hovin•b' sto1n On civi1 or rtOinifl oat1known or br1j'd to havq bn sto1'n schdu1'd )ffnc's." qas -'vng bcaas as taOk of vid-ncg to show thOt h was awar that th animals rciv'd wr stolanprorty. Impliad.lyit. Wamy vaw ha th apallaflt should hv Brrn cO.afr wth anoffn5 undr s'ction 3 Ca 422. But That as diff'nt from t1 psnt n' Th prscnt cas fa1lsuncir Itm 8of th -' irstSchdu1 to th'nw Act b'cas, althoughrcivin,- gtoIqfi o0tt1 is prsly xoluddin this Itm, this timo thn cattic rciv'd was the poprrty of a spcifici authorir. Th NOtional Agricultural Company Limitc1 is a wholly owned subsidiary 5f th' Nafional AgriOultural bñd FOd CoporationTh body oororat stablishrdTby wfitn1aw Othr thOn thr COmpaAios. Or4nano Cap. 212. In this cOs th1rrfo, th' otfnc" is scnou1rd and Tibihika was • right1yssntnc1 undr At N. .1 . of 1972. •• Th'r ar no in'rit hither • in:. hibhi 'appai. Hi0 tfa j or ground isthát hc astiot rs.ht onth da.bf :thc àOtual sale anc1coti1d not • th'rfore 15-s hlci I±ab1. The 1.anc1 trial magistrat ässd his • thicFto this axgurn-'nt w'- ht ON to nVict him. On he roundthat th'was OOmm iint tion.tteen Michael and th third accused. Ihave carfu1Iy.reviewad. the ovidarice •nd fifld. thai • isfindin .. cannot be impe.Mionael and Thr thiro. ccase2toether nt To TiLihika' house. Th third accused Opears to haeintooucec1 in tOpic 0±' selling a cow. hn Tibhika qne1 t know v herethe nai obtainel th ow both eple, 1 " w' kw. rn ' LOter both ofthm led Tibihika tO the bush to. see The aflimal but the lierd hd dispased.It was oaTh Ocond occasion that t.hethird aOcuse came alone. Micha1 seems to hOve befl infuriated by The thira aocusad.s foitare to share The proeds of sale with him and wont toreport to his superiorO thOt h hOd sean a company co at TibiJikas. IThhink this was dufficient eviderictotab1ih th rquisie nens na ihd. I •iicll. the cnvictiont to have.. proper. Th entenpe,;on the,other hand,:was the ,minimu ihnO.e.r The law: and there is no rooBi for mitigating factors Nrc cattle thft, is involved. Inthe res0.lt If'in h0t boh appeIlanswer' oropr1 9nviOted and sentenced. There appeals are therefore disnissed in their entirety, • .• . •. • ••