19780317 TZHC Dodoma

IN.THE HIGH COURT. OF TANZANIA AT .PODOMA APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NOo 2oi OF 1977 (ORIGifj.AL CRIMINAL CASE. NOo _78 9.F 1977 OFT~ DISTRICT COURT OF M?WAPWA) OMARI MOHAMED YASIN. .. 0 • 0 0 ••• 0 • 0 • • 0 • • • • • APPELLANT . (original Accused) ·-.. Versu.,; · THE REPUBLIC. o e o o e o o o .. o o ,, o • • .. .• • .. • Respondent (Original Prosecutor) Charge: Being rE::ckless and negligent c/s 233(d) of the Penal Code Cap •. 16 Vc·l., i ,9f th•:, revised laws. JUDGMENT CHIPETA 1 J., The appellant, Omary s/o Mv·ham~d Yasin,· was cc..nvicted of M off(:!11ce cited as b0ing reckless a.nd negligent c/s 233(d) of tha· P .,nnl Ctde, und was sentenced to pay a fin~ of shs.: 500/-= or . f0ur mcnths imprisohment. He W3.S furth,:~r ·ordered to pay tc:,.: the ' c,.,mp1,:!.inunt shs. 500/c: as C ;mpensatiun. He' n0r1 appc.::al.s. The prcsecutiori•s evidence is ,to the following effect: at ubvut 10.ss P'cm~ e,.n .18th November: 197~· the cc,mplainant, ·one No-f.tcli M.dutu w1;1s · n his w,-:tyhOi.,a · from an area· called Hazina- in Mpwi1pwn. t0wnship... As h-::: pn.ssed by the appellant 1 s house, three dL)gS cht1r0c,d· at him nnd c:·ne cf them bit the~ cumplainant 1 s left lcig. Thi.:: cc.mplain,mt immediately rep, )rted the m.1ttcr tu , ,.•·.('!lice At the time th<= ccmplainan+: was bitten by the dog• the appclL-:.nt wus ~sl<=e~ in his hcuse, bt.t a turn-boy of the a.ppelL:mt (P.W.2) C:1IIIC to the scene shortly . . . fh!r the comp.lninant had b,ien bi ttcn. Accc,rding to p., Wo2 the appr~llant ts dogs · are always tied, and thr.it on his arrival ,::it th-::· scene he i:the witness) f,.;1ind the app.:.:lic1ht•s de.gs ticdo The witness .=:;.dded that·thc.:re is anoth--:r person S·. me 30 pac~~s awu.y. frcm the scene who also k,,:,eps dogs. · In his defence, th-, uppelLmt tuld the trial court that he owns f,_:.,ur dogs which h2 hns been k, ,epin<] fur the l-1st six to 0 seven y.;").rs·~ During all, this•tim<➔ the do<]S have ·never bitten anyc,ne, and for .two:;years prior ·b:, the incident his servant, cne George, had ... b8en looking c:1fter· th8 dugs und hnd instructie,ns frcm the appellant .. ':.-·., ,.-. r, to k...:cp th.:; de.gs tied. ·•· ···· ·· . The learned· trial district ma<]istra.te, i t wuuld appear; found· r.1.s ::i fact that the de,g · which hit the C(,mplainant belonged .to ttw f.'.ppcllant, .and th~n held th;1t under the law of master and · serv!'!nt the nppc.'lLmt wc1s vicariously liable fl,r the criminal negligence.; cf his servant.·· HG acccrdingly cunvicted the appellant as ch :-,_rgcd. /, As ,a. general rule cf crimin'll liability_~ a master who h:.1s not po.r.ticip:1t-2d in th.;;._ c0mmissicn. cf an offence is_ n0t criminally Lfor liabl<f. the acts or omissicns cf his servant. ·such liability can ohly •• /2 - 2 - attach to c1 master by statut0ry provis~-9ns which create the off.~:ncG in terms· -\!n.,1t impo.s~ strict liability, or ,vhere i t is pL:iin th;:,t the acts or ommissi0ns of the servant were authoriz~,d, abetb~d or conniyed at by the mastero . : .. In casesi wh0"re crimin2l li,:lbiiity is imposed by statute, a cuurt must, bE,fore ,:itt~ching liability tu a master for acts 'or· omissions of his. servant, decide whether the prohibition or duty imposc,d is ubsc.,ltite. To decide this qm,sticn the (;bject cf the statute, th," lu.0guage used, ~nd the p·'.:rscn gn whom .such duty . .!/' wculd ordinarily b'e impos..::ed must be c,nsidered. · The relevant previsions under which the app~,llul)t ·was arraignr:;c1 s·tate: "233. Any p01rscn who in a mann,~r so rash c•r 'negligent ;:i.s tc endanger humcm life or tc- be likely to cause harm to i2.ny ether pers...,:n ..,. Ca) (b) 'Cc) (d) omits t<., f. :ke·precautions against any prc.bable danger 0 frc.m any animal in_ his posse ssicn; (c) (f) (g) {h) is guilty cf. a .misdemeanour" ~,my vir,w, th8 duty tc; take care c,f · an animal is · imposed c.-n the ·pc,s-sessor; illld a possessor may or may net be the _owner •• , :i:t1s•_cl2c1r hi me_,thererefc.re;that the prcvisicns quoted . ··.i.' abtNe de.not impose an absolute prrhibitic,n o,r duty en a mastero In .0th-.:,r words, they d not create abs<:,lute liability ,.m a mastero Thc1t bc:ing sc, and en· th2 facts cf t'1is case, the a1jpcllant cannot .·. irr rc,2.scn b0 hc;ld vicaric.usly criminally liable f, r the acts c;r ,'.Jmispi.:.,ns cf his servunt unl(,ss there is evidence that he c1utnori:3e:,d, abetted, ur co_nnived at the .acts er omissicns of his scrv,m;t G~orge o ., The duty •if thc owner c,r possessor .:.f•·;i:n'\mimal lik2ly to endungor humun life is tc s ,e that it is kept in gcc.'d handso The c::p 1..<~1L:mt gave ,ch,·irge , f his d<;9s tc, mis servanto That servant had ~8 1)t the dc;gs safely fc,r twv r·ars. Besides_,·the servant had .tnstructicns from the appellant to keep the dogs tfod. At the time:. of th.,, incident the appelLmt was asleep in his house. There is, tl;l,::rafcre, nu evidence th::t the appellant failed tc take good care of. th,~ d·cgs, let alc-ne that he· abetted, aui:horized, c-t! ccnnivc:d at the acts er. omissic,ns of his servant. To give charge of dogs tc a servant with instructions tc him to kt"ep them tied in circumstances which sugge·st th-J.t the servant had for a long time discharged.his duties carefully cannot by any stretch of the m,3uning c.,f,,wcrds amount, per se, to rashness er negligence on the purt ,;f the mastero ...Lpertnent While ,_ n this p( int it is /2:-ashness er negligence in the to deserve P+Ovisicns quoted ab eve, in my view;- means. rashness c:r negligence tha;t the which is culpal:)lc. It is net every slip or mistake that amounts to criminc1l rashnc~ss , r n":;gligc,nce. Fer these re as ens, I respectfully agrz:e with br;th the L.) ::trned c, unsel fer tJ-i...: d,:::fence ,:1nd the learn~d state attorney fc.,r th,s Rop'ublic .th,ctt the principle ,:,f vicaricus criminal liabi),.ity Wi'\S misuppliP.d by the l'8c1rn,0u magistrate, ,.md ·that the le ~rned '.:::. mevJistr::tc~, with resp~ct, failed to consider the legdl'· meaning of the words "rash" and "n8gligent" ■ 3 In the result, this app~al must succeed. The Ct:,nvicticn is acccrdingly hs:.,reby quashed, .-md the sent,:.;nce and order of cc,mp2nsati(.n are hereby set· aside o The fine, which I note has .b.::?cn ppbid, must be refundec.l tc the appellant. The c0mpans<:1ticn, if paid, must also be refunded to.himo '1!ttft1 B1!1o~JUDGE ff.OP CHIPETA Dclivereq. in c,pen cc.urt at ;Jodcma, this 17th day c-f March, 1978. · F. S. Chi'lrnbakare, Esq. C, uns(~l f, . r Dc~fence Mr. Mchora - State Att0rncy fer th,?. :Republic.