Criminal Appeal No

I N T H E COURT OP A P P E A L OP T A N Z A N I A AT D O D O M A (CORAMS NYALALI, C.J. , M U S ATAFA, J-A. and KISANGA, J « A . ) C R I M I N A L A P P E A L NOi 12 OF 1904 I B E T W E E N M a T H A Y O KIULA. . o o . . . . . . o « 0 oa o^oo<,n ooooo<,oaoooo<.»o = oooor. A P P E L L A N T and THE REPUBLIC.„. _ , 0 .......„ . „ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . » . R E S P O N D E N T (Appeal f r o m the c o n v i c t i o n of the H i q h Cou r t of T a n z a n i a at Sinqida) (Hon. k.S.Ko L u g a k i n g i r a , J.) dated 30th d a y of J a n u a r y , 1984, in C r i m i n a l S e s s i o n s C a s e N o . 36 of 1982 Reasons for Judgement KISANG A , J . A . T h e a p p e l l a n t was c o n v i c t e d of m u r d e r and s e n t e n c e d t o d e a t h b y the H i g h C o u r t s i t t i n q at Sinqida. He a p p e a l e d to this Court* At the h e a r i n q of his appeal we d i s m i s s e d it and we now qive r eason s f o r d o i n q so. T h e a p p e l l a n t is a q r a n d c h i l d of the de c e a s e d . The appellant's f a t h e r had a l l e q e d that the de c e a s e d , his own mother, had k i l l e d b y w i t c h c r a f t , his t h r e e c h i l d r e n and that she was now b e n t on k i l l i n g his g r a n d s o n , a child of the a p p e l l a n t w h o was sick at that time. T h e s e a l l e g a t i o n s w e r e made at a v i l l a g e m e e t i n g w h e r e the d e c e a s e d was a d j u d g e d to p a y a f i n e in the f o r m of one h e a d of c a t t l e to be s l a u g h t e r e d and e a t e n b y the vill a g e r s . At a subsequent meeti n g , h o w e v e r , a d i s p u t e ar o s e w h e t h e r the d e c e a s e d had actually a d m i t t e d beinr* a witch. The d i s p u t e was n e v e r r e s o l v e d and t h e r e f o r e the h e a d of c a t t l e was not s l a u g h t e r e d . The m e e t i n g d i s p e r s e d at about 3 p.m. and the a p p e l l a n t i n t i m a t e d that he wo u l d take the m a t t e r to court. L a t e r % h a t e v e n i n g b e t w e e n 7 and 8 o' c l o c k the a p p e l l a n t kill e d the d e c e a s e d b y b r u t a l l y s m a s h i n g h e r head w i t h a bed stand. 2 In his d e f e n c e at the tr i a l the a p p e l l a n t raised the d e f e n c e of provocat i o n . He stated that a f t e r the m e e t i n g on the m a t e r i a l d a y he and the d e c e a s e d r e t u r n e d home - it is c o m m o n gro u n d that the a p p e l l a n t and the d e c e a s e d lived in one home. O n a r r i v i n g th e r e the d e c e a s e d p i cked up the m a t t e r afre s h and, wh i l e s h o w i n g the a p p e l l a n t some i n s t r u m e n t s of w i t c h c r a f t t she t h r e a t e n e d to kill h i m and his ch i l d for h a v i n g i n t i m a t e d at the meet i n g his i n t e n t i o n to take the m a t t e r to court; she insulted h i m in addition. The trial c o u r t r e j ected this d e f e n c e as b e i n g f a l s e and an aftert h o u g h t . The learned judge found that the r e a s o n w h i c h the a p p e l l a n t a d v a n c e d in co u r t f o r k i l l i n g the d e c e a s e d was c l e a r l y an i m p o r t a n t one which, if true, he would have d i s c l o s e d at t h e e a r l i est o p p o r t u n i t y a v a ilable. But the a p p e l l a n t n e v e r d i s c l o s e d it to the v a r i o u s w i t n e s s e s , i n c l u d i n g his own wife, his father, the p o l i c e and the just i c e of the pe a c e w h o m he had the o p p o r t u n i t y to t a l k t o b e f o r e m a k i n g his d e f e n c e in court. T o th e s e w i t n e s s e s he gave his reasons f o r k i l l i n g the d e c e a s e d as b e i n g that the d e c e a s e d had k i l l e d b y w i t c h c r a f t his th r e e b r o t h e r s and now w a n t e d to kill his son, as his f a t h e r had a l l e g e d at the meeting, and s e c o n d l y the f a i l u r e to have the head of c a t t l e s l a u g h t e r e d and e a t e n b y the v i l l a g e r s as a c l e a n s i n g ceremony . T h e s e f i n d i n g s w e r e f u l l y s u p p o r t e d b y t h e record, anc we c a n n o t say that the re a s o n i n g of the learned judge was wrong. It is c l e a r that what the a p p e l l a n t told the w i t n e s s e s as his r e a sons for k i l l i n g the d e c e a s e d could not c o n s t i t u t e legal p r o v o c a t i o n . It is e q u a l l y c l e a r that the g r o u n d s a d v anced at the trial, a l t h o u g h t h ey co u l d c o n s t i t u t e p r o v o c a t i o n in law, were not the true r e a sons f o r the killing. I n the c i r c u m s t a n c q s , ther e f o r e , we w e r e sa t i s f i e d t h a t his d e f e n c e was r i g h t l y rejected, and it is f o r this r e a s o n that we d i s m i s s e d his appeal. • /3 D A T E D at D o d o m a this 2 3rd d a y of March, 1985. (F. L. NYALALI) CHIEF JUSTICE (A. M U S T A F A ) J U S T I C E OF A P P E A L (R. H. KISANGA) J U S T I C E OF A P P E A L I c e r t i f y that t h i s is a t r u e c o p y f r o m the o r i g i n a l V-- / •>y ' (P. 3. MOSHI) S E N I O R DEPU T Y R E G I S T R A R