19770723 TZHC Mwanza

-. ~r ~:~::~p:::~::~::::~I:~:::NII. Hidii: -::::(,U}~'Ii CRII"iINAL· Ai'fl8·;"'L NO. 108 UF 1977 (Origina_i '_Cr_iminel Case No.· 1·91 of 1976 of the Dis- trict Cm?rt c,f · ::,cing~rema b··rstric·t at Seng12rema - Befor~·~; . .. $. Knbibi, ' Esq.~ .District . .. Magistrate). . FREDERICK MBILI'ZI § • 0 o o ~ o o o o o e o o_ o o o • o o o o t11 ·C? o • o APPELLI-.NTS I.BEL KAMILI ~ versus THE REPUBLIC ·o o o o o o o o o o o o • o o o o o o o o P. o o o o o o o o o ~ "RE.:3i?ONiJENT CHARGE: Robbery.with violence c/i .. 285 and 286 of the l?_enol. Code. JUDGEMENT: . F-RE.PEIUq<:. :•1BILL.:'.:I 1,ND ABEL K1~MILI, were convicted as c:ha.tg~d :and sentenced by Sen~: :::rema District <;:'.ourt to seven years. imprispnllient each, a's accused ;fo. I and. No., 2. · They werC_ furth~r o.rdered to· compensat~ .. the CO.ffii)lain.::nt 500/=each. .ThGy are_ now ar:ii:iealing . .c:igninst,. convictiq_n • .· ,_ Mr. Des;:d, the lE:i3rned Counsel representing, the a_;)pcllants --· submitted, th2t .:m th2 evidence adduced By the :,rosecution, the:····:. comz:i'ct.ion: · .for robbery with violence could not be had.. He maintained, that _in reac!'1ing· conviction:, t·h·e trial mag,istrat2, must have misdirected -himself on the requisite eleme_nts of the offenc~. charged .. He addea.,· th2,t ·this ci3se had f,lssu·med nol,i tic al cnarrn;:teristfc·s; i'n the course :.of :thl:: investigation processes, ·th,:it involved ;:_><):li ticians like th8 i~rea Commissioner, and tha.t,. as a ~result the polic:ci··'c:::aie. :file had been clos,~d. He.a:dqed, that.this 1,jas it'i.dicatcd by·thJ -·"· fcict, that although, t};le_inc:ident compiained of took place on 20/4/74, the appellants ware never taken to couri ~ill 22/7/76. Mr; ·· Mwanyika, -the l2arn~d State Attorney, representing the_R~public, fi+:St: circumventin.0 the issue _.of merits of; the ,3.p-sieal st.i;-aight',· submi,tted that c1s s2ction 196, (l)°. of the Criminal Procedure code Capo 2Ji) was not ccm:,li,;d with~ the t.ria.l \~p.S- a nully o He cited· : ' cases:·:...- hBDULi.i-!i,,Ss;,N Vo Ro ( 19r/O) HoC.oD.o Noo 279 and JO:]IA ZAKAYO ·:-. ·v.,:·R~.j,(1972) :HoC.;)o. Hoo 38. as. authority fo~--that 'pro~ositioh~:' · ' But cJS.l •tht! qi.wstio,1 of ilrOpi2.J:'.:·,tri_al,. ~ould. ?1rise anyway,. Mr~ f1Wanyika, mnde· an unqualified acknow,ledgement that indeed the elemen:ts of' .. · ·-the ofife.nce charg,.::d Wt:ire remarkably. absent. r- -;:r .. . , . -- The· fact~ uncho.llenged are thr1t, the re.s:i;dt:!nts of Kifu_nfu Village, :feeling :'l.n ungove_rnable sens_e of irisccuri t.Y, ..f~fr ·t·he?--r '-- cattle, and. suspectin~J, that some· of their vfllc:gcm2°t"es' were,;; harbouring cattle rustlers, convined a meeting_ 'ih ·tvhich they : _ ! -· decided,· · that all the suspects pay a cow :~ tradi ti9nal fi.r:i-e :each. In the course. of th\, execution of .this· :".Ji,is-1;:ice", the vil+agJrs ~}ho included, the app,~llal'.l,~ went around ceasing .ca,ttl8 · L,,..;1_ucting th&se of the complaLi,Lt in this ---:1s eo The appe1iant I s . :.. y i ' ' their indictm-2nt,ga~e about becm,1se am9ng ·t;h-.:; vil~agers. i.ncluding ·ten .cell l~nders;they were the ori.~::-.:;.,. th:it·/c~used/ t~~-- cows from P~v .. 2 Gr,-ice Chris pi no, who was . then graiingi and ·the seme people, who upon the intervention of _yr,J,, 2, ~)"l.e. wife of. the · : ' complainant' told her' that they could Si)~ak. to a womnn.. '. i,nd · admi t.tedly·· like any oth_er vill?gers, the_, ap·)ell<;1nts, who . 'incidentally ·were ten c,"11 lead_ers, w_ere armed o. _This. 12vidence led·. to.' the a;,pel•lo.ts conviction .of th2 off2nc b char\v~d • .To" pursue the issue raised by·;·M.r. Hw~nyik\i first, I observe~ ,th:i't· this cas2 was fir-st partly. ~o:"nrd }:r)' t"1rp · 1<isuriji (S0), .r~· 2 ... Mro Kabibi ( DM) later continued and finished tbc ,:rialo I further note, th,--it Hhon Mro Kabibi took over t;1,: co.se, he did not cumply with the provisions of section 196 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code Capo 200 The im;vcrt and -sigt1i ficance. of. this sc:ction, has 1Jecn interpreted ~y this court, so m~ny times, that it is has acquired, a notoriety, :eha1t makes us·:as:3ume,,·thq.t pro:)0r-C.);[!;~liance with th(:~ same shoulrl rdise 110 ;-Jroblems ~ Howevr"Or, if. I may try to .do what my learned broth .. rs:i'h1'lve ·done, and may d,o hcreafh:;r, f have .:to point out that while saction 196 (1) of the Criminal.Procedure Code gives, th~ succeedinq magistrate who has and ex2rcises Jurisdiction descreti:.)n· to rely and· ;ict on th,~ rec:0r,-::1 '.--yy his ~)redecessor, and :,artly by himsel•f, the succ~>:ding trial masistrate must make his · election c2refully, for where the casS hi110cs ,Jn credibility of witnesses, ha cannot claim, to be able to assess witncsse's cn.~dibili ty for th-.:= bflli'lnced. decision'' o'f the cus0 · a whole, if he! has not seen a.nd hez:ird all the witnes.seso Furthermore section 196 (1) (a) of the Ci.Jc, is i3.'p~ov'iso that makes ma_t').~ 9,t,gJ:-y that the accused he informed of his rights to r.-:,summon and rehear witnesses heard ~y the former Maqistr0teo It a~~eurs, that this should b2 the case where the sueceedin0 ma~istrate intends to act o~ tho record partly heard by his predecessor, as proviso (a) of secti,in 196 ( 1) of the CPC., would not arise, when the J'decides. .succe.edi:,g mo_is.:trates under 196 (1) of the C~)C/to resummon the wiitn.f;:S,SGS :md recom'mence the triaL I_t furth0·r s~ems, that the succe;edincJ mc1gistrate to proceed ar,ct' act on th..,-c record ;-iartly· recoide~~y bis predecei~or, he is subj~ct to the r~sults of complyin'J wj_th t:sroviso (a) of Se·ction 196 (1) of the CPc;:o For I cannot se:c huw, the:: mt10,istrate would do oth2rwisc, wher·e When acti~1g ingqm2lia~ce with the proviso (a), the accus~d has demanded that witne§S<;=S, ]JG +>'Summoned to be_ reh(;;ard~ In this c:1.s:.:, Mro Kabibi, ,the succeeding tio.gistr,:ite di:d not, as. I. hu:v~ ,)oint-:~d out comply•with 196 (1) (a) of the ·cPCo Th2se p~ov{~i~~s as, can easily~b~ o~a~rved 2.re·~aridatoryo FailUre:to appiy ..>f:he sdc: J)rovisijns 'renders ull efforts a nullyo'-- The authod:.tL:,'o i.:r,➔ ub,mnding ;inc:Itidinq 'those· cit2d by the learned State. l'd::.t~Jrney Hr Mwanyika.. ; To. point out ,::,1\ly 2 few - . we have O REtlEM:I:::.iE,LE ~LI;)f, 1\JlJ VJ Ro (1967) H~CoD~ 750 i]QSI,\ Z,d(.:YQ VSo R (1972) HoCoDo NQo 38, i,BDULL:HS3i\.N V~R~ (1970) HoCo;Jo · 279. - . : . f • ... - . . .. The qu.,:cstLm h,_·re is 1,Jhetht/t a nE)W trL:il should be ordered., It is here,' thot we CDrne face to face with th,' counsels ton:tenticm, that th~ ~videnc0 did not ~~tablish the offeri~8 charged. rhhve come across rio holy .book, which says...i _i:hc1t th:_c1 :: cm order for a retr:ial, should be au·tomatic, where the triu.l has been declared . a nui'ii.ty un 2.ccount.. :of' any irn~quluri ty for which the 'riiagista:-ate is resnonsihlc, aria even if there was one, I woul~ be reluct~nt to acc.ord it thee res ,ectabi_li ty of a formula o Nur 'ilrould I . concede to sucrifice justice;!, at th'e alter ·of professional indolence, if justice can be achi~ved, through a re~rialo But justice can hl~ done when~, there is cvid2,,.cco, which has failed to achis:,ve its mission. b:~cuuse of the nullifyin.q factors , utside ·t-t~ In snch circumstdnaes • a retria,l couJ_c_~ in my vi'"'w be ordered~ 'But wher,~ there recox;d benrs " no evide:ncu- su:,' 0 orin<J th," ,vi char0e, ,. ove·r . . and' abo'vc, thi:)'Verdict invaliditinc; iJ;-rcrJulariti~s, orderc:iri']' a retri2l, is,a waste of timeo .For if,th,! ;:,rosecution, .. had. 11.oiev'i'J~ncc j~:1 the first instance, where would tlHcy get it,. from for a retria-io . ,·Com 1.•n' g t --:, t',, 2 CiJ.Se . 1.·n ,'0'01 . .. nt; , all the'i:.1n'ellt.i1ts tog~ther with many viliag'.~rs did, was while armed to tab~! th,~ complainant's· a:attleo ikcording h) t 1,,: law. of robbery the. mere• act uf taking even being forcible, will not constitute robb~;t'yo·· '.'To· consb_tut'e r6bb12ry the force us..:,d ur threats thereof rtrust be ei t:hcr 1x:fc.)re. or ·at'. the time of t<;1.kinc;' or imm2diately after' - th6 tirn~; cf'.! sb:,slin.g ,· arrct: must be of such a nat1,1r\;:,, as to show that_ it~ wis intcr:.ded ·to aver power the party rc>b'.Jed to obtain tfre prciJJerty' 'or prev,.mt his resisting to- it;s bl,in1~; stolena. In this case, w_e have oply people ceasing cows, Jilo viol_ence, ,,. . s an iristrurn.e'nt for the' cbasure· or acquisition of the same is .:1vi( : ,c ..!ll, mfr d,, elc\nerits- c/f'· theft 'easily COffi(:; to -1ighto - 3 I agre,: there_fore, with the cou:1s,~ls that th,:: evid1..mce does not disclose th,~ offence churq,:cl o Ordcrini;;" a retrial, where cibviousJ.y th2r,._~ is no ,~vi,iGnce at all 1 would servci ,·10 us2ful pur_pos20 Th:,, trial is th-:ir0fc,re dt2!cl2rc~d a nullity ,3.nd no n,:w trial is order.l'!c.1 .. The ay_:•.~llnnts to he allowed th,~ir liberty, i f tl,,:y ate not oth2rwise legally held. Deliv2r2d this 23rd d2y of July, 19770 /\ '- ... '•~-· \ r/\ ,t \_\ .Eo\·1i'. KATITI, JUDGE NWl\.NZh HIGH COURT.