19820219 TZHC Tanga

ondp p-çvs atj, ajojaq euxas 1.1 Lxvpunoq oa.xoo e ou& pio *aq 10 atzo q3 .i vuTcIuxo etj$ puv 1.UcttOdd 91. uq aoOlt 0fldSTP u 0861 UT uttrçt[dwoo etj. ;o o.xfloqtau PUVI JO 0 0 0Td PTtS otj 696t UT 4auq .AM ija uzo.i; (tqiixvts) puvT ;o v posttp.xnd quti. - ecIdu oiq qttjq. op&OtuOuzui0ot I q.0 tXOtoflJtZOo 1teAoI OOtO vTqq. jo soouoixmorto .10/put alli 0TT 0 cIi.ethhi ThOU 91 ott put OUTJ ot. pttct OH txtwt1&txoo atjq. 0. uo•p.tsuodoo Su =/000'? stts td oq. pe.1ep.xo ost LLM oj stq.tzouz ee.Itq ,xo;.t oq. 09 oq. 'q.uetuictd JO q.flt;ep UT 6.10 =/QO' * slqs 9aUTJ t Ad Oi. peotzaqtxao OtM ott put qunoo 1.0.1TJ etfl. tXO 00AtX00 q.nq q.trnoo, pU0099 0T4 U0 Pe4Tflb0v OtM OH 'OPOO Ivuaa 9tfl. .1epurt OUaO e 9Otq. JO t0 'eAçqoodooj t.1Od0.1d o. etwtp snoToTitul put- sstdso.xq. IVUTtUT.IO JO Sq.UflOO 0M1. UO OOtsrLf ..Ifl03 q.oT.Xq.sT 9Tjq..tXT pO.IttIO . 0tM.4Ut1"t0ddt STttj i.• w•aectnr MtI otq. o -- t 'IOA 91 •ct0 opoo Ttuoa ot o (t) 9 0/0 i..I0dO.1dO. ettvp sflOiOttt:?txnoo ptlZ 'sMX etjq o t°A 91 •cIto opoo 1tueotq. ;ç (t) 66 0/0 TtuTw.xo:tzroo '2T.1o) INaaNOcIra ........ sfls.XOA (pesnoov T1Q) e.v.1TTAt/ "boa — I1TO1f)I 'cI 91TO t (91.ot qoca O.0ttsflf] JO tt- 0 09 0 6fr •0N 09t3 1'otXTurt.1O LtC 1' / 0861 4. 1IV5V 'IvNIIIIUO / V09VI 11V vINYzNv1 ff0 LH0D HOIH ax / 'I I I 2 - was resolved one way or the other the appellant went and cut dowii some wattle trees w:ich were in the disputed area. The complainant wnt and filed a.complaint tgainst the appellant in 1V.alo Primary Court, SEE Paalo Criminal Case No.7. cf 1980. The appellant was prosecuted on a charge of Malicious dathge to property. He was, however, acquitted. No subsequent proceedings by Way of appeal or revision in the District Court or even litigation in the Primary Court todetermine the correct boundary folloied. Instead, the complainant went and reported to the Policewho then arrested the appellant and Subsequently chaiged him with the offences mentioned hereinabove., The person who Sold the Shamba to the appellant gave evidence on the prosecution side 1 He was PW4 • He told the Court that the disputed piece of landwae acthallT, not part of the parcel of land which he Sold to the appellnnt. It is the complainant's piece of land and the uprooted wattle trees belonged to the complainant: The learned District Magistrate who tried the case acquitbed the appellant cnthe second càunt of malicious damage to property on the principle of autrefois acquit. He however, proceeded to convict the appllnt on the first count of Criminal trespass, for "maliciously destroying his wattle trees". If the learned District Magistrate acquitted the aellant bf the offence of malicious damage to property I fail to comprehend how ' dlinost In the same breath, he could possibly have found that the appellant maliiously destroyed the very s3me trees. The particulars of offence on the first count a1lged that the appellant unlawfully entered on to the land of the complainant with intent to commit the offence of malicious damage to • property thereon Havihg found that the appellant did not commit the S'id offence the trial Court should have proceeded to find that all.the.elements of the offence charged in Count one had not been . 0/3 - 3 established and acquj the appellant on that Count one as well Since it did not do so the trial Court erred This appeal has, therefore, merit and it is hareby allowed In the final result the conviction on Count one Is quashed - and the sentence passed thereon jS, accordingly, set aside It is hereby ordered that the fine which was paid by the appellant should be refunded to him. In view of the appellants acquittal on Count two the order of compensation is also set aside Delivered in open Court at Tanga this 19th day of ebruary l982. -. - •- - (H.E.D.±a) ._- Judge Ij