19801211 TZHC Mbeya

:toIIoJ SP pe.z .ioop siedT STt tOtt et10 97qT UT OOUOJJO JO STflOTzd atll eouojjo we jo Y'TjTn9 aq .USfl suosxed .Iei.;o .xoJ pO.I 9T uozopuoo oqrtzoe.i not -pt IO Sooxo poi uo .io eiotja& aCLOUl t spus .xo s3trd osn oi .,i uosted SuV :otitre-r RUTMO TI OJ eq. uT potonoo ST toçtM 'cL6t ov oTjjeal peoU et Jo o pee.xo sç OTOTLIGA zoqotri jo en U'TL-a0 PTsUOOUT Jo eouajjo Otn 'qnjap uç 4ue zosçurç 1 stquoiit eçj .10 =10001 'Ns jo ewç; v oq. peotze.ues S vm G H oçqsp i jo qinoo OPTqS T P eq. Kq oouo;jo Jo peopuxoo ait ~ LM TTedds oqj eIoctte.& .iooui jo es a .apsuootrç jo oouejjo et. O. .zrror pio.i uo eorqe. .100ti JIUofl;S le JO trp1oOtrY[ atfl seo :sp. s -I fIt?1 Jo .uTod QaOtTs le s O s -r lea iedcF $TttLL — "$ IVMVHVS LL N AJ a Si f (.xo;noeso.xa 1uic.xo ) S -. ' LIaN0aSaJ :' 0 3I1EfldII rit stlSctOA • (pesnoov iin2wo) • S • • • S00S0 • a • c • 050 • • • SSI • SS L NVTITBdcIV 0 .J'(tIiTSV VSSfllt L1flLLSIOVN I NH(lim uoins ' si V VSflTWN ni r io VD&IHI iv aiusia VDNI?I do lufloo r1oiHLsia aHiL do LL61 do 66 'ON ISVO 'IVNflAII?lD 'IVNII110 9L61 ao 61 'ON 'IVcIcW flfNfljIIHD NOLIOIc[SIaOl' JiVTIAV 'vcatni av VINVZNVL d o ITIOD HOIH aHL NI - Tr -2- " Nusa s/o Asakwe charged on 1st day of Nay, 1977 at ajout 06.45 hours along Iringa/Mbeya road at Kitwilu within the District and Region of Iringa, being the driver of Moto:c vehicle Reg. No. TZ 4516 Benz did drive the said motor vehicle on the public road without reesonable consideration for other persons using the road s to wit, he mocked a motor vehicle Reg. No, TZ 2718 Leyland Bus which was parked eztremely left side of the road and caused daziajes to both vehicles." There is no room for a rational ontroversy over the fact that the prosecutor proved beyond sane doubt that on the material day the appellant, driving his motor vehicle, Imocked from behind the Mercedes Benz lorry, which ias parked on the the proper side of the Iringa/Mbeya highway. Iriieed, in his defence the appellant admitted, in express terms, all these facts. Do those facts disclose the offence of incor:.erate use of motor vehicle? Until the Penal Code (AinendnenE) Aôt 1980, s. 3 of which, unfortunately, abolishes the w15.-estab1ished rule of interpretation which requires that all penal laws be cons crued strictly, comes into force, the courts of thi country rTus -t continue to intorpet penal provisions which suffer from ambiguity in favour of the citizen.. I use the word "unfcrtunatelyt' deliberately, because in my view the rule which thE section abolishes is one of the safóguards of the liberty of the indiidul. Rèférring to the rule, more than a centu'y a.g BE}ST) C.J., said: "If cthis L1e isJvioIated, the fate of acm ed persons is decided by the arb{ - ary discetion of * judges, and not by the express authority oJ. the Ias." (F1tcher v Lord Sondes (1326) 3 Ding 501. The passage is cited. by ATINSON, .J., in Phillips v Bourne l9477 1 ALL E.R. 374). The legislature has chosen not to heed that warning: it is unfortunate, if I may respectfully say so. To revert to 'etopTsuoouT to ss aTe avo Stm a j oTqO4, ..zo.oui qqq. jo uprn3s .10 .UT)I.1 6 T2Tfl al~ j .10UtflU 4.1314 A UI O0i0stp 0. jflO U0140GS .IE3pun 8Xit0 17 'OS op 0O. &UO e.ITrLbe.1 'OTA jN w '.ou seop 'cL6 ':0V0TJJtL O{ Lfl JO O '. P Ud 5SOG.1S0 qonpuQosçuI jo .ott PTIa0m euo .LU 'upamI .etopsuotz JO rçs I1eT 9Lj peflITIQO GA't (;. PiJOtt eq pnoo StO 8tT1. JO ousr1noz - Q aVj n0Tqa U d , Gqq. trç equose:: s T umil zcao uo-E, po.xeI IG zzoj posuq Lta. e peoçtaA STt st?d ot.1aEpp IT eOTqeA • .10.9Q0 2UpU.S 10 S UPIXO CT 013t0p U0OUjtI2 0tOTL0A - .100tI jq pTjTpu~~ s .10 d9 upfa u d 'Tst1. 0 TO 'JS 0. 51 '590U9JJJ0 qotsp qq •iezo el pupueq.trç SUM txoçq.oes Otfl. 'sp.1oM - Uj- U0çO0S 0Tq. Jo UMo.1J: etq. .Ieptrn T-[J oq. uOTq.oaq.o.1d poetxspo.I- jo S.1oSt IOTLM up nq 3uTATzp 50T.1o• ol q,.unou v q.ou pfl0b tOTt{M q.oflpu0ostu et{q. tr.r UflI sw tJ4Sq.J.1 etjq. -, ¶peuto si& q. ed:cts oq. t{!t eptm uoçq.oes eqq. aq 11po.1 aqq. wçsn .SUOS.1od .1etflo .xoj ucTq.tepTstoQ eq1uose.1 q.ttoqq.p& .10 H 014 ixç'pp U Et oq. SUIOE)S q.I eIOTt 0 A .1oq.oTir JO OSfl 8q..10pSU00tI JO OOUOJJO 0t[n o q.suop plflOO q.T 'ThtTAp:p sS0T0.to JO OOUOJJO el oq. q.tmoorn •q.ou ptno q.ç norq. •uTAT.1p sseiezro si lT 0q0Sep 6 tt1 TT4 I 'L0M UlcI&tiE V .1OU .101VT Zt 0T4lTeU q.nq 'p120.1 otq. Jo S.1OSfl .10140 oq, eoueçtxoAtzoolrç jo loT s esnso tzi q.onpuoo l utjj &poe ds mo-Es tEanaziqxa uv q. -strp.çxp 'scftWzecI 'sç 2UTATZIP Jo pup q.qq.jo elciuruxo q.soq a-ql O aATqumTjjv 014 UT uoq.senb q.tq. aaxsur p T nom I eIoTq0 A .ioq.oui Jo esn eqs.1epsuoouç oq. 4.UflOU12 q.ou soop toqt eIoTeA .10q.00I Jo esn sssiexso -s 8.1014 T q.n snoIJ.1edns eq P T nOM uoTssezdxo .184I etq. 4 9aOM SatI T JI •snotiuou1cs q.ou 0.112 81Ot10A .100U JO OSfl eqSaepTStzOOUt 11 pu 11 01OTqeA Ioq.orn jo esn sseexeo 11 suoT000.1dxe otq. qtjq. op i s &s ol q.oeatoo oq\q.snu q.ç te& Sn UI 'PPYE swt ersto 014 tOqM a OPun txoq.oes tq..OUIq.SUOO oq. q.seq souo op q.srui euo '.xq etq. qu 05120 014 • I ,. -4- The mere fact that an accident happenes does not mean that the using, parking or standing of the motor vehicle involved was ddne carelessly or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road. It follows that in my judent the particulars of offence in the charge laid at the appellantts door disclosed no offence known to law. The fact that it was alleged that some damage was Daused to both vehicles does not alter this legal position; I do not pause to consider the question whether the ev.denceon record disclosed any other offence because in my view subs itutiori of convictions is not in law possible in this case. It is not safe to say that the appellant was not in any way misled by the error in the charge. This factor alone preventsThe fm"embarking upon the task of considering the substitution. For the reasonis I have givm, I llow the appeal quashthe con-iction, which, incidehtally Mr Tëeinba, dounsel fei th Republic, declined tb- port nid st aid thé:ënitnóe indsed thereon, if thèappeIThntpaid the fine, the same shouldbe refuñdedtohjm. B. A. SUTTJL JUDE DElivered this 11th day cember, 1980, in the presence of Mr Teemba, counsel for the Roub1ict and the appellant. 17 ti B. A. SANATTA JUDGE''