19840921 TZHC Mbeya1

4 • IIT MD uGH COURT OF ThAflhJi AT_NBEJ •' . L:?LLLITL' JuISDrC0N ' (r. YA RUGISTRY) CllTIilLL AiPEZiL 110 4 91 OF '1903 oIca:;.L'.L CRflflNAL CASE iO 396 OF 1 983 OF THJ DITCCT COUItT OF NJ3iyL DLiTRICT AT :ayL Befbio Je i'I I'iyeyeu 4sq& # I-L-sident agisrtu. VERSUS mT'r1 'LY r')TTfl rr -n ' - -i- cHiRGJ Driving a iiot-or vehicle on the public road ihil defeotive ö/s. 39 (i) , aj and (5) of the' Road 'raffic JJ0.30173. JUDGML2'IT - -• ,r The appellant ERE3T I-T1iKASJX'E wt cnvicted 1' t1e off enco of driving a iotor 4 chicle on a public road while d.efotive c1'3.39 (i) (a) and (5) of the oad Traftjc Iot. He was sontenced to a fino of hs%OQ/= or six mOrrtths ir.ixisonrit in default1 I. ,b is now cmoaling against sentonoe. The 3ppellant readily pleaded guilty to ieca and was duly convicted. In hid rtoorandw:.i of appeal and argua€nt in court thQ appellant submitted that the iititing factors were nt taken into consideration and that the fine of hs450O0/ was too heavy for a nore difer as it was the duty of the owner of the vehicle to naintain his vehie in c-d condi -tion.. -Iqr, Bathynigti, loarnud for the appellari efeWod thu Ctt- to the cae o .v,lort 1 kandenu 1969 }I.CD. n. 48 wharo a fi of hz.70/ was rocudod to 3O/ because the ap ellant was a -e: •-; -nd could hardly responsible f d r the state of dcs a.r of .. vehica. runga ': rther said that even the defoo Lc'aoe].ves ere very niier and tha' lack of painting could ha'dly be said to be a defect- . hr0 Ndunginu, J.oarncjd tate M;torny .:ad J.ia tao ricodmurn en&lty uncle.S.39 (5 was - 20,000'= and the trial gitrato had passed a sentence of a fine of only 5,000/= which could act b sh.cl to be oxoessjye Moreoer the ppell:nt never raised the cjtwstion of acono in initiga- tion1 Ir, Ndunguru argued further that non-.availa Llity of spares was • not to be thkcn as a licence to contravene the l:r. I In this oae the tool defects were hand brake not holclinr and W in'iootors not worth'. The vhiclo in queation wac a small vehiole, make poi:g€o' L centonOc of 5,000/ fine was certainly excessive in the circumstances taking into consideration the natwo of the defects and the other surrounding circumstances it this case. I agree with the appellant that thd senteee was exoossivo and I reduce it to a fine of hs.l,OOO/= or two nonth&. ±ipr1 soi3ment in de±ault • The appeal therefore succeeds and the sen±eido of afino, of hs.5, 000/= or six months irnprisonrne±t in default is haide and I suiitc- therefor one of a fine of Shs.1 1 0001= or two Monthi jitjsownt in default. The eumof S.4Q0O ould be refunded to the apellant forthwith. N d B1iILLTI Ll 21/9i Court Jtdieñt GUAM in Court on 1st ptnLer 1984. r. Ndnu for respondent. Nr, 00yinga for aellnt absent, At . Df.dL 21st $eptembei ii)34 '