juma shabani another vs republic 1987 tzca 77 20 november 1987

'The appellants let the deceased out of the lock-up when the deceased said lie wanted to case himcelf out apparently nr t s coit.t of apphal o f tafz.iitia AT W ZW Z1 (CGHte'i IIAICAKj, J.A. , (3-1.13, J .A ., And MFALIIA, Ag. J.A .) CPJKTHAL APPEAL ITO. 47 OF 1586 1. ja r . 1PPELL.OTS 2. muss'* hdhafya VERSUS TIB PJDPTJGLIC.................................................7JSSP0MDEKT (Appeal from the conviction of the High Court of Tanzania at Tabor a) (Chipeta, J ») dated the 10th day of Juno, 1906 in Criminal Session3 Case iTo, 102 of 1985 JUDCaESNT OF TUB COUPJ KIKAHB, J.A , 1 Those two appellant a, JTJMA SII'J3..'ITI and MUSS ’. H3OT1NYA, were each sentenced to imprisonment for nine years, consequent upon thoir conviction for Manslaughter on thoir own pleas of Guilty. They admitted to have assaulted with stones, to death, a nan called IIUS3r?E! IC1TIHI who utxa under thoir care. The docoasod was in the lock-up at Lalago Primary Court at the material time* The appeal is against sontence only* Tho appellants appeared in porson* The court was not furnished with any Memorandum hut wo 1oar nod from the dock that the appellants arc intornod at placos away from Mwarxza from which places their Memoranda wore posted. Thoy said that rather than delay thoir appeal0 further thoy would verbally t e l l the court what thoy had pvit forward in their Memoranda, The learned State Attorney, Mr# Mtaki, had no objection and wo acceded to thoir request* • e• The appellants lo t the deceased out o f the lock-up when the deceased said he wanted to ease h in c e lf out apparently this was noroly a ruse to f a c i l i t a t e h is bid to cscapo* With the help o f other people the appellants ;nanagod to ro-oapturo the doccasod. Having done so? according to the rosuno o f facts= * ,the two acousod porsons severely assaulted the deceased with stones” . The deceased had already been apprehended so i t was qu ite 'unnecessary and callous to mistreat hin the way the appellants did* In sentencing the appellants the learned tria l, judge took into consideration the fa c t that the appellants wore f i r s t o f f e n d e r Sentencing is a d i f f i c u l t exercise and th is Court is slow to in t : rfo ro with a t r i a l court’ s d isc ro tio n in th is function. In the present ai>poal wo dcelino to vary the sentonco inposed. Tic are not in a p o sitio n to say that i t is manifestly excessive in the circumstances,, or that i t erred in p r in c ip le . I t is cortainly not ille g a l. T7e agree with Mr. Mtaki that the two ap p olla rts have not advanced any ground that would warrant the our in terferen ce with^scntonco meted out, Accordingly wo dismiss the appeal, DAT17!) at mUJIZL th is 20th day o f November, I 9O7 , L , II. K X J 3 JUSTICE OF APPEAL A. M. A. OMAR JUSTICE 03J1APPSAL L. M. Ag« JTJSTICS OF .1PPIAL I co rtify that th is in a true copy of the o rig in a l* (J . II. ESOFPE) SZITIOXl DEPUTY rJ’G IST'.lll.