19830909 TZHC Arusha

• ..moo OtR JO OJnhtJJ OLU g/ ootd ooq q.jcvqq. @T4q. tletpt . LTU OI O .ipp oaa SOq4 Iot sou ouojop -ctr pu UIIOCId cC 1ot1 I'4P otj. osto CUV U] •t?-çu uss Otfl UOUI TTOII qq9 TU qgg er jo %'TUJOUJ Qt. put otq Jo q.t[Jtt.t ot. 'uod U O LL61 JoquIoAo q99 U0 oog 9,u p.txn000 ).Jot 04J '.UUUt tj9g UO po;.tuimOo W! QOtZ ) J'JO 0t O1JttLt LL6T J3CLUIOA0NI tçg J0 .xotwco o, s'.xoJo.i iV1uo U OI04 TqTr JO GOUOJQP Otq. L0A0X o .UUA0[0J .ou 9,T .XDptuOO I pt xnoo J:U-CJ4 Qt .uUITocIciU oqjSc[ popx TqTt jo ziuojop UOtUOTj4u0pr JO Gflt 0L 110 J.OtJ TO uTptrçJ oxxoo Oqj. Qt- pQJVtXJt3 orq.sT?Uw TIZ';Ta4 oqq, poTJpi urn J01 OL R 11I)IJ" UOO UOt.UQ ootToct 0t .0 UUI0OtTO(I 01 • O UOttXUcIUIOO tL UU q.tO.VOCICIU Jo QUIUZX Qq pOUOT.uouI OUrM eQ0q OSTV ;tJttaoow Sam 0.101 V , Tqq, pttU cOAQTT 1. Ot oq os'oo otnb ol o. p3iUUVw PUtI eQUçiA Uoi3noQO.zcT otç. q.Ut. OUJ ot £q m ozdi.rrç .'noo 1 -r.x1. ot UOtUU(1UI00 QT PUU .UUITQC1.cTU gJTQ.UOPT Oq. UIc)tfl. QTCLU 0 O UOOtLt rUOTOTJjflQ 1311 0JO1 V44 pOq.U.Q tJ 0 TITA 0144 Jo SU0t0J QU Ot[. LkOU31 4Ot4. UT.fl. pot Q uoUq.p Ot TW p1 ett Ot[. 110 tuTT.t pni toç qno SlIf 2UnIJ 4utuT^oTdnioo qnq socooa4pa ouo ou !Ao.tXC IZU loolqg o. PeLx; 04 JO QUO U1Ot. PlVuOTT7cqO pUU 0cIO0ct 09OL14 JO GOJqOUI uO4 ut;pt 0q. tODOjJdt o. paJUuu Aou aoo U JCUAU Jur..xp oiclood oM. muc iVuj, 6 1100 Otq .ZOJ )OO1, O. Ino poJnq.UOA QL3 xot02o puU JfloqtTOU çq Jd p1113 9E1d o)fo/tV O UçUi BU& 1.100 QUO UU uO[O.Xq UUIOq 1 oj3O sTT4 punoj vqophT 'TJ!j 4UUTUTdWOO Oql, LLT qtUAO jo qçu ot TUC Ut SOL tIOAQ £xonq.14Qotfl. qqçM poQQQq CULt oq qJOqf 14U0 JOJ UOT.0Ti.UO0 flOTAO'tCI U 011 V QUIUS 'q.xttOD .OTJQT([ 3 iC1 'DpO) TUOd QT. JO 0,09 G/O qjotq. O0JO P9.QTAUOD UUttS;J p'YfVru 'soo -rt. UT ° • 2 fY'T 1PZfloa'Of rIar1dI ai :nzoA (aIAws 'Imoo aorsia ) LL6I d O T'3 , O1'I ao rIVNITAI2j TYNIDi'1O 2 1161 dO 693 ON TddV TNIiAiI iflO H-DIN vHsrniV IV irikITMEM tffO JflOD NOIH NI 2- The failure of the trial court to consider appellant's alibi was clearly wrong in law. EOWcV3i, on the basis of the decision of the East Africa Court of 1"-ppc - To. VS Hanilsisaidi 1942 VOL. 9 EACA 50 and the decisiOn of Eng ceots in R VS Sagar 10. CR. .PP. R. 279 and R VS Carmichael R. 183 ,. I believe it is the duty of this court to arrive at its c. r.. conclusion upon considering all the evidence on recd. I believe that tho tial colrt was oonvinced that th jrosecution witnesses had correctly idciifiod appellant and that there was no possibility of a mistake avng been made. :. the debision would have been the same on ihe alibi wasconsidercd, I come to this conclusion because appellalit did not give his alibi to P63 Sgt.Shcban when he arrested appellant. Tho far.. that he did not raise his defence of alibi until the trial raises consi;rable doubts about iti The trial magistrate on the facts would nccess , T . '.Ij found that the defence Of alibi did not raise any doubt Ebout th osocution 's case. This appeal is .therofoe disiss in its entirety. . 1 J C, '301)L H. 8/9/83 9/0/03 .. .2. Dclivered this 919163 in the presLrc oftcngcle s/A. J.C.DUZA ., . . G DG