sebastian so antony shayo vs republic 1982 tzhc 31 8 october 1982

I N THE H I G H COURT OP T A N Z A N I A AT M W A N Z A APPELLATE J U R I S D I C T I O N H I G H COURT C R I M I N A L APPEAL NO. 1 8 1 OP 1 982 ORIGINA L CRIMINAL CASE NO. 34 OP 1 9 0 2 OP THE D I S T R I C T COURT OP MWANZA. D I S T R I C T AT M W A N Z A - B E F O R E E. K. MUTAKI, e s q ;1, d i s t r i c t m a g i s t r a t e . S E B A S T I A N S/O ANTONY S H A Y O . . . . . . . ............A P P E L L A N T (Original Accused) versus: THE RE P U B L I C ......... .. ......... .. ........... R E S P O N D E N T (Original Prosecutor ) JUDG M E N T JIUNYERA, J'^s - The two a p p ellants w e r e j o i n t l y convicted of stealiig r servants and sentenced to 3 y e a r s i m p r isonment each". The f a c t s w e r e ■that the f i r s t a p p e l l a n t w a s a m e c h a n i c and'the second a p p e l l a n t a watchman, b o t h e mployed by M w a n z a Tanneries. O n 1 5 / 1/82 B e n j a m i n M a y u n g a (PWl), a m a c hine operator of the same company, saw the second app e l l a n t carrying a bundle*'.' He suspected him. " O n i n t e r r o g a t i o n it w a s f o u n d that'he w a s carrying a role of copper w i r e s i n the bag. He questioned him.' The second a p p e l l a n t told h i m that he w a s sending the w i r e to the f i r s t a p p e l l a n t ’ s h o u s e . That the f i r s t a p pellant h a d g i v e n h i m the w i r e and i n s t r u c t e d h i m to take it to his house and there to sell it".' The f i r s t a p pellant w a s arrested o n s t r e n g t h of this information. B o t h w e r e charged as above. I n their defence the f i r s t a ppellant denied k n o w l e d g e of the w i r e . The second appel l a n t argued that he w a s o n p a trol o n the l a k e side of the f a c t o r y and f o u n d the w i r e i n question. He d e c ided to bring it to the f a c t o r y to enquire if it had come f r o m the c o m p a n y fs store. O n the w a y he w a s stopped by PWl w h o did n o t believe h i s account.’ The t r i a l ’ ’magistrate rejected +-he appellants* defence and c o nvicted b o t h of t h e m ’ . Both h a v e appealed* F i r s t of all there w a s no evidence to prove that the f i r s t ^pellant h a d any c o m m o n i n t e n t w i t h the second appellant. The only evidence to that effect w a s that of PWl w h o told the court that w h e n he arrested the second a p pellant the l a tter told h i m that he w a s g i v e n the w i r e by the f i r s t appellant. This story w a s denied by the second a ppellant i n court. D u r i n g the course of the trial the l e a r n e d trial magi s t r a t e admi t t e d and r e a d a s t a t e m e n t said to h ave b e e n m a d e by the second a p p e l l a n t and recorded: n Court: Accused’ s stat e m e n t r e a d and f o u n d that he d i s c l o s e d that Shayo (ist appellant) h a d g i v e n the w i r e to him (2nd appellant) that Shayo t o l d ' ' h i m the w i r e b e l o n g e d to h i m (ist a p p e l l a n t ) 11 It is not k n o w n u n d e r w h a t p r o c e d u r e this s t a t e m e n t w a s admitted as evidence. The f i n d i n g based o n this statement is d i s r e g a r d e d . The f a c t remains that there “ w a s no c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n the two appel l a n t i n r e l a t i o n to the w i r e * That being the case the f i r s t a p p e l l a n t oould not be he l d criminalty r e s p o n s i b l e f o r w h a t the second a p p e l l a n t h a d done* I now tur n to t h e ’ second appellant'? He a d m i t t e d that he w a s found carrying the w i r e . His defence w a s that he f o u n d it near the lake shore and w a s / w h e n PW1 i n t e r c e p t e d him* The trial court m o v e d to the scene and obser v e d that the second appel l a n t w a s a rrested at a distance of about i mile f r o m the f a c t o r y towards the lake shore*J This confirmed the a p p e l l a n t s story. I n his e vidence PWl did n o t say w h e t h e r the appellant w a s w a l k i n g towards the f a c tory or away* This evidence did not disprove the a p p e l l a n t ?s story that ho w a s bringing the w i r e to the factory. I allow the appeal of b o t h a p p e l l a n t s ? q u a s h their c o n v i c t i o n w h i c h the R e p u b l i c did n o t support, set aside their sentences and order their release." H I G H COURT MWA1JZA 8TH O C T O B E R 1 9 8 2 JUDGE