19861202 TZCA Dar es Salaam4

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT MWANZA (CORAMs Nyalali, C.J., Makame, J.A. and 1<isanga, J.A .• CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 15 OF 1986 BETWEEN FRANCIS MUTASHUBIRWA) PETER MKAMA ) • • • • • • • • • APPELLANTS ANTHONY SHILINDE ) AND THE REPUBLIC • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •~RESPONDENT (Appeal from the convictions and.· sentences of the High Court of Tanzania at Mwanza) (Mushi, J.) dated the 16th day of April, 1980, in Criminal Appeals Nos. ·tis:.'·and 116 of 1979 -;;:~~ .=~_:;:~~ JUDGMENT OF THE COURT NYALALIJ c.J.: The ·--three appellan ts·,--namely ,. Francis Mutashubirwa, Peter Mkama and Anthony Shilinde, hereinafter called the first, secon:i and third appellants, respectively, were charged with four others in the District Court of Nzega, at·Nzega, with the'offenoe stealing by servant-. contrary to sections 271 and 265 of the Penal Code, l which constituted the first count and concerned the ' . r' I ~ '.) " I three appellants only; whereas the remaining four accused persons were charged with receiving stolen property - contrary to section ~ 11( 1) of the same Code ·l I in the second count. f •••• /2 'ti ( .. I • . , ~~~~- ~ ' ..... , ., --~ . .. . : .,,,. , . . ~ - .-~,........ . ... 2, ;SN:_-~,\~_~_t_t-._-,·· /i-) b< ;:>:. ·: ·; .•. _. • . ~ .i.:/ ! .. ,. . ·, ' ..: .... ·Y-·._::. . . • . ~--Af.t'e.r':·a -~11 trial, the-.th.r~El~':e·pp~llants,were·.· . ··\_.: ..· .,...•--<r~::::-::-;f~__:.:,~:~:.::, r -· ·. . r . . ::··:.~::\ ·Y/~:</: -:'.');\) ?~:::;::?::· f··· convicted-".'on\tlie·:. charge facing--t_~~}.:~herea~ :,·-,:--.;..-.. ~-<<· . ' , • -~t:?.·~!):.-\:•!1~•~::• 0 M ••.--~-~-:~:.~}f).~::•:.••r•:·:.~•:•,~-~.'.;\;~.\\.~· one of th~··r~ining four persons ··cr,a~g·e:1-:.w.i;~h\-r;ecej,ving. · · --;;;:~,~:§~1,~-~~~4~;;~:::~a sacquitte<l·r:.. :i-~~ - -- • •• • I •• ·• {',~t~~~-~~;i~~i~~1;1c t~ '--~~f.Yf~!~E~tJ~•:i·~f~~t;;~J::~:-(; •• ~ - ·.- ~ ~ on the charge faci_ng them. · The trial court sent1mced : . . .... .. the three appellants to seven ·years' imprisonment, ./ ·. '· ancJ··the'-othe.i;-~ wer~ ··: ~-. ,e~tenced ·· :1:0.1~ht.~~:fy~~J:'!i:!· ... -·~ .-:.!",. •• : '.: .. .. ' . , ~mpr so~_ent. 7 ~he three a_p_pellants·,'::'.:~~~~e~)~i~h • the other. penons except one, were a~grieved~- by ,I • . .~ thei'r donvictions and &entences arid, they appealed_ to the High Court. I On appeal to the Jligh ~ourt, Nushi, J. di1?missed the. appeal again, t tha convictions by the three appel;ants, but ,reduced '.the sentences ·to five years' 'imprisonment. wi~if;egard'. to:•those convie·ted: on' the cha:rge' of receiving sto1e·n ·prope.rty,•::th~ High ·couft ·quash~d: ·thelr-_'eoqyic't:for.iii iand' ·set .aside··.their sentendEis in respect ·of· those'who·· ,>i, appealed, 'and ·exercised '·lts powers: of irevision·'' :h':'d.-.. . ' . ' .. ., "aoi ·:quastect ·,:'the·· conviction: --an:i ~set ·'a·side- th~- ;~~ntence . . . - ' . 1n-:_r·espect-'of: the·· one whcf had :noti appealed.'. ;"ThE;'} a·ppel1ants'.". were•,-further •aggrieved'• by. the_-outcoin~- in ,-: . the High Cour-t~:;-he·nce: 'this: 'ap pea 1·,· to.: 'this-· ·Cour.t. ;;~,.--:-The· procee41ngs · 1n \he' ·two:court~' '.below,:··established tha t'·the·-- three,•appellan ts were at all material times employed:,·:by- the National Bank' of Commerce, :_whit:h·;·1s a:·•.;. \.. - . .parasatata_l·,organiza·tion', ·;.nd· were stationed at· Igun"9a"', 0 ... ' /,;~~ .,::;. Branch,'•in! Nz'ega•'Dis_trict. :.• The·· first- ·a~pellant::was· a, i~-:._' ·aank Accountant~• whereas· 'l;he,:secorp · an,f,-thid. appellants: ; . ...•,;.:, . ~~·~: --\:t. ,. ;-'-~it~~·•-- ...... ,·.~.:: 3 - w~re a Bank Supervisor and .. a Bank Messenger, respectivel_y. On the 31st December, 1978, a sum of,shs. 120,000/- was found missing from_ the strong room of ·the Balllc at Igunga when the Bank was opened for business that . morning. The money had be~n safely locked in the·strong ·.room at the en:i oi Bank busin~ss the previous day. The ~ opened1. door of the strong room could not be/except by the use of two keys, on.e of which was kept by the first appellant; an:i the other one by the second appellant. Th~ matter was reported to the police. Acting on infol:ll\ation, the police managed to recover a. substantial part of the money, that is, the sum of shs. 119,000/- at a house 1n·.~wamala Village~ where it had been taken oousin by one Roi:i'e Selemani {P._W~~), who is the • ·· .. : -of the,.'· third app.ellant. The three appell~~~s; tog~ther.with others, were arrested· and charged accordi_ngly. It was the·prosecutio~ case at the trial that the three appellants were involved in stealing the money from the Bank• It was part of th·e prosecution case that the money was later handed by the third appellant ·to P.W.3 to take t~,·Mwqmala Village to be hidden by the third appellant•s· relatives. On ·the other.hand,. it was the defence case of the first. and .second -.. appellants that at the material time each had left his Strong room key in a drawer of hiS ·office table; and eadi--appellant had then locked .. up that drawer.· It was therefore . part of the defence ... of these ,appellants ·that sQneone·~oul1· have had access --. 4 to the strong room keys in the drawers and used them ~'. to open.the strong room door, and thus st,tealthe money. With regard ·to the third api:,ellant, it was his defence that . he was not in a position to have access to the money in the strong room. The trial court, after considerin~ the evidence on _the side of the prosecution and the defence, rejected the appellanU' defences and conv1cte1 ther(I as charged. Those convictions were upheld by the High Court as already.._stated • . In his memorandum of appeal, the first appellant raises no points of law i:,ut., c'1npla1ns that both the. ··trial court and the High Court .failed to consider the'·absence of evidence:by-finger prints experts . '··'' which·-was: necessary to exclude ' -the possibility- ·· • of· l!i person other than the appellants t:ampe,ring .. with the drawers of- his• table~· 'He·· also=·complains· that· the -two courts failed· to--conSider the fact that the circumstant:ibl evidence =was ·not suf-ficient to · fncriminate the ·appellant. Clearly, the ·complaints by. the· appellant concern matters. of fact. ·' Since I. this;isa ·secon:i· ·appeal, this Court is precluded from:' r·e-evaluating::.-the -evidence. I_t__!~ we:n established that the .role· of this Court. in a second appeal is confine:i or mixed matters• of law and faots. to ·matters of law/ '.Since' there-'-was ·evidence· that· the strong room door c:'Ould not be ·opened except.. -by· the use of ·1ceys·, · 'one ·kept by ·the appellant;' this appeal cannot succee:i. --- • I s ... ..,. • I courts below failed to take into ·account the fact that was an accomplice., ije further complains that ·. ,-;\;J,<;._'.:.,;;,.:·;t./·, <j/·:~, . '.• . .:'•. there was no evfdence·-fto,.:,1-ink) ~the ·money found in Mwamala !' • • •:,:"•,~•~r-t.{•'>•••:.'~ •' '• • •:!~•• r • '(illage_ to the: mon~y-st;o1en· from, .th~: Bank ~-t·:.~9unga_. ~ . - .......__ ' . -.~; . . . :;:.::__~·- '. • . f' .. · ~1th regard to his secon<t complaint, the appellant i. is clearly wron~ 1~ ~-s.serting that ~~h~re was no evidence i ' . . .· '• .... i to. link the m~ney· recQv:e;red in Mwamala Village to the I ,l money stolen. There '.--'as evide_nce to tbe effect that the .. bag in which the ~oney _was found in M~~mala Village . ·. l lI . . . bore the Bank label of :Igunga National Bank .of Commerce. As to the first complaint-, i·t is apparent from the :-. record··:that··,h1s ·con~iction was' :--c~·•-not based ·on·:·the , -- .. :--: -. - ';_.J ?_·,---~ ;.,.,_::~- ~ · · _..;:· ~-- · ;;f)~t,-/ . ~:~.-· ·. i:S:-·:'.~~-~.. ·:<t_:"';/-··· evidence - of P~W:.'3:,;~~-~u'.i/· Ol'l ~e··.,s~~~-;·~.EWidfal~ei.'-upon. · • ., .... ·,- .~·. ·:·: -\~· ~... ·, ... . . . . .)-' which .the first· appellant was convicted. He waE1' t:he custodian of the sec~ :::'·:;t;-or,g:~~X'?om~ key-.· H ~oll:ows, _ . ;:_, -~ ·. ;·' ~- <·.:'. -~~-· ... •'•; _, . ,'_-; ·,. . . : . . 'therefore, th·i;l.t':th-e;,a"~p~~l :of:ithe ~ec·ond a_ppellant- alao . Jt .. . cannot suc~ee:i_ .. .-: '. . With regard to the third·'appellant; 'he raises only one· point· of. law '.in his mem·orahdum bf appea 1.. The· rest are:- . matters of 'fact outsHe 'the scope of this Court. 'The ·point of-law·concerns 'the 'failure by the·:two· court's below to take into account· "the fact that-P.W.3 was ·an· accomplice.·- "$he had taicen· the m'oney 'for hiding'• in Mwama1a · v111age.: It is true tha·t ne'ither the· Htif'h ·:Court' ·nor the· trial· court· consi:dei::ed the possibility • '¥,"" • ' - - - - - - - - J' .. ' •,· .. · ' ... ' . .. of P.W.3 being an accomplice. However, we think that even if the two coUrts below had found P.W.3 to be . • ·.:. 1 • an accomplice, they would have fo~n:i · a·mple evidenc~ . to corroborate :ther testimony. There 1s, for instance, J the e'vidence which showe:t that th~ bag which co~tained · the money hidden in ·Mwamala Village' b•re the label of Nation~i Bank.of Commerce, Igunga Branch; ther~ is , ' . also the evidence given by one Hamisi Wamba (P-.W.8),. 0 ·who is a watchman employed by the Bank at Igunga, to the effect that he •aw the third appellant .d~ing a bicycle on-which he carried a packet.·· He was riding from the Bank towatds i1is home an1 he was reluctant to stop when accosted by p.w.a. Subsequently, ,, he wias·· s·een . comt·ng ·· froin-' hi~ honie -. wi"thout" th~ ··pac:Jce'°t.t r iri." there~:ning on''the' 1ay 'of the theft.' Thi'S evid'ence ti"es .· entirely with the ·evidel?ce~_Qf' P.W.3, the"'-·· .. :. appellci"nt: 1 ·s·· 'Sist~r; who' 'tE!Stir.ied. '·:•to the effec·t tha·t: _.,, . , sh~ was'. . at the· IMiterial ·ume· living at th'e·'appella'nt •s home_- · That 'tact is· confirmed b}' the th·i'rd ·a·ppeban·t i. hiinseli--·fn the· •evid·ence· wh'ich. he'•gave in· :hl5i defencE'i.:· •••• /7 i - .. \. ;' . ... .- .... -·~--- . :•· ·• •·. • .l I I. j '\ 'ii: ~ - - - ~ . -- ~~-::-·"::.---.,.;_:::~ ~:__;__,;:,,~::..:.:::·----.--.-.~--'-,;-- -_:::~:::::_- __-:-- __ ____ ~~ ~--,-....,,,_..oe:,,..,,,,,,,__s~&~~'.:'~~~- 7 Thus the link is established between the money stolen from -the Bank being t~ken to the appellant's home and being given to P.W.3 to be taken t1111for hiding in Mwama1a Village. With such corrobor~tion, the two cour'ts below could ~ot have come to any other· · conclusion but to c:onvic: t the -third appellant even if P.W. 3 was fo.und to be an accomplice. All this means that th~ appea-1--··by the .third appellant also cannot : succeed. With regard to the sentence, it is ap_parent tl'lat the · two courts below did not violate any principle of 1aw · r·elevant · to sentencing. However, it is apparent that .. neither the trial court nor the High Court was aware of the point that the provisions of the Minimum Sente~es Act·, 1972, require the appellants to be ordered to refund the money which remains unrecovered; that is the sum of shs. 1 1 000/-, under the provisions of • I section 7 of. the Minimum Sentences Act; 1972. ·We shall ·cure this defect by applying the mandatory provisions above cited,atrl order the. appeH?nt,' jointly , and severally-, to· compensate the National Bank of Commerce by paying it the sum of money which remains unrecovered. Since, from the evidence; a sum of shs. 748/- was seized from the third appellant in the course of invesUgat.tons and was ten::iered at the trial as Exhibit ·11 E", w~ hereby· direct that this sum of money_ be , paid to the National Bank of Commerce as part of the ,c'ompensa tion; an1 we order accodingly.· This means a sum ·of "h4 .i~! . .::~::::·!{\,,,-.. ·---- .. !:, };,;; ·::..:,_;_-~:::~~~~~:?';·:~~:~'...A;~ _: ~-.<!~ ••.. . . .., ___ _ .-~~--···.·~;~i~~?TI?'l;~~¾r:~;>~~0~:·::::{i:'q,:;:-.. ·~ / 8 shs. 252/- reir.ains to be recover.ed from .JJ:)e appellants and must be paid by the. appe·nants. ···:~\.tJ? In_. the fir.al analysis, therefore, the appeal is ,: .JJ\; dismissed in its en'tirety. ·. :\18 ~ ... DATED ..at MWANZA this 2nd day of December, 1986. .· . -~:.: ~. . .:... ' I ~ ~-, ··~·.. ,, . '..,, ,-• '-'.:,~l . "· /:f . ~~~ ;.Hf:_ ' , - ~ ...... · ... ··J~ F·. L. NYALALI . . ~ hi~, . ,~ CHIEF· JUSTii:E .. . -• ... ,;_ .. ........ _·.· - :. .··;.: ~ --~,::r: ··'· ~: L. M. MAKAME JUSTICE OF APPEAL .:JJil .... ,:..•} ~ $ A_!• . p,·1~; •- . ~~ 1 ~-.11,s~-;,, , ., ·. ··.I <•·'i'. ~\•_ci1 . ';:, (i;) •,T /tt~ ::·:,/ ·)?·! 1 ·]ilif~! R. H•. KISANGA JUSTICE OF APPEAL . ~ ., ' - t..j.;-/ I certify that this is a true co~y of the original. ;-~~t ~.t .--it~ ~~:{.:~·~: ; .. ~~ . r.:c: ; . ,~~-~-. ~~ .. . - - ·:..,.'.:-~ ,, :.~It--;; .;,. \ •: . ·--.""-'•· ."'\j .. !. :!,: .!! .,.,. .·. ,.,._."; • ·.• ,'to, . -~ ' ... '