19871120 TZCA Dar es Salaam2

. D.iT '!'lllc COl.BT OF APPEAL OF T.:rnz LIJIA I AT r,rnANZ.,1 J o ..:\o 2 CTIIMDJ/u, l . .PPD.'u, :NO. 88 OF 1987 .. . . . • li.PP]JLLANT VIiTISUS ,. TIB ll'.3PITTLIC • • • • • • • • • • • TI."'JSPOIID:'JIITT (,:\.p:peal from the convict ion of the ITigh Cou:d of Tanz::1.nia at Tabora) ( Chi po ta, J.) dated 26tl1 dny of J1.,"!).1e, 1987 in Criminal Sessions 02,se Ho. 21" of 1985 JlJDGJ.\'IENT OF MJCJ·l!D 2 J .A.: ,,... I had the oppo:;,,'tunity of :reading in draft the majority juigment of this Court, composed by my lGe.rne;d brother Mfalila, ,1.go J .A. . I have to confess my inability to subsc1•ib0 to the conclusion reached thcrcino I shall endeavour to exrlain uhy• .Lt his trial ir1 the High Cou:d, before Chipeta, J., it wf.s not controverted that the c1pJ)ellant P.\SCT:,,L J:C:.SIG,\ assaulted to death a .... you.11g nan cs.llcd N...'~mI'JC..'.. NTDWINY.\ 15.SIID-IDO Hho had enjoyed tho intimate favoUJ.'s of JWNIC.i\. P.:.SCIT..',J, 9 tho appellant 1 s daughter, put her in the family way c,,nd refused to marry her des:pi to being besoechod 1)y tho appellant to do soo There is also evidence that the decoo,sc-1d cm.·i·ied on with the love affair oven after :Monica had become mar::..·iod to anoth01' r,Rr:to Such a situation cannot hn:ve failed to annoy tho appellant, tho more so as it gave rise to an unhappy family incident which mad0 tho appellant I s wife leave the lik'l.trimonial homE:, 2 tornporai,ily. ·'1!.heEJo a1·0 £8,ci;s which att~:-aot sympathy for the ap1:>ellant and p:rovido tho bacl';:drop to hiG attack on tho deceased. Tho appellant and the deceased wore villagcmatoo and close neighbours at Ipilili Village in Nzoga District. On the fctofttl da;y-, in b1:·oad dr.~rlight, at about 4 or 5 p,mo, Monica P.W.2, arrl her youn[;'Gl' sj_sto:r wont to n wall, hm•dly a hundred paces from their house, to draw some water and they uent thither on tho appellant's own instc-uctions~ ac?o1·dillG to Monica, The deceased also wont to tho 1-roll with his bucket and, as ho wns walking back to his house co.rryin-3 tho bucket with soma water, ho 1m.s hit with a stiok by tho appellant. According to lil:x:h, Pl, tho Post-Mortem report, tho doco::,,ocd suffered 11 /,. big hole in the forehead 1iith "- brain e:ictruding from the 011vity. F.rco blood in the cavity (sk:uli) 11 , and ho died of the ho8.d injUl'Y• In cross-examination clurinc; tho trial tho appellant oonoodcd to thc~t "It in truo that I decided to punish-tho deooasod", and. in his 0xt1·a-judicial statement, which ho adopted, ho, tho appellant, disclosed th.at when he c.ccoatod tho docoaeod and "Before tho doooasod had replied any word I struck him with a, stick on his forehead. and ho foll d0i-m 11 , Thero uas this olomcnt of doliboro.tion and the desire to punish.- L Neither counsel wished to ad.d.l•ass tho IIi@l Court at the end of tho hearing. On tho ovidoncc; Chipota, J. was oo.tisfiod that thoi·o had boon no provocation. Tho lon.:r.nod trial jud..:,"'G inferred ma.lice aforothought fror:1 tho a.ppollantto doola.red motives tho natui•o of tho woapon used - a hoo.viJ stick; the doG:roe of force used, oo as to co.use a holo in tho forohoad. 1 and the vulnerability of tho region tho appolJ.Ant struck. Tho lom-ncd ju.dgo disagreed with his three assessors e.11 of whora had advised thn.t tho appellant was annoyed and. had not 5.ntendod to kill tho dccc2-e:od. JI • 3 only one GJ'.'ov.nd, Pi,ovocation, c1nd it is tho one dociGive issue ro11J.ly. M.r. Mtaki, loD..z'ncd Scniol' State Attorney, sought to lmvo the conviction for murder u1)hcld. The substantia.l question io, to my mind, t-rhn.t go.."',ded the 2.ppollant to n.nc.,-cr such 2,s would excuse tho sud.don c.?.nd d.roc.dful essault on th0 dccoo.scd rn'1d. reduce it to tho lessor offence of Manslaughter? m10.t 1-ras tho unlo..wful o..ct or insult on the pm of tho deceased tJ.1..,t tJ.:i.rm·r tho deceased into c.. transport of p.:.--.ssion and r.iedo him c.ct 'in tho hoo,tt as it wore, before ro11son had resumed her sor,t? Gr"mtoa. tho,t because of the bi~ck,:;:rnund, tho ~ccusod wr:-.s annoyed by tho cc,rry:i.ngs on of his obstino.to and promiscuous tccnn.3u dc..ughtcr with the doco,~scd 9 but cc..n one soriously hold ' tho..t in corain;; bo.ck from tho well, f1,om wl1ich, on tho ovidonce of P. 1'l. 2, the 2.ppolla.nt had insclf sent hi □ waywn.rd daU[")ltor n.nd. her r.dblin::; 1 and by wc,lkina- behind Monico. a.nd her 13istcr, tho docoaood was n. provoker? Qj~£mted the. t what had ta.ken plc.ce before wn.s 'cunn.ua ting' on tho a.ppollant I s mind 1 whn.t w.:-.s the last strew? Thero 112,s no evidence of the appellant finding the dcconsod and Monicv.. in cor.ipromising or sueeostivo . circumsto.ncos, end there is no indication that P.W.2 o.nd tho dccoc,sc.l h2..d. gone to tho wator-plc..ce as a, rooul t of a ron..4.ozvous. Mr. Kahane,·wa □ought to buttress hh: brief .n.rguncnt with the two authoi itios ho cited, n. v. LUC::.S ·P. TillJJ.'i. 1975 LB.T Mo. 8, 0 and SUITTTS·'l•;;'•T{D,1T\O \.U ,..!.--~• •U "lo ~.!M'1,,TAf,<f•.rroc-,I V .,., '-' J.' ,'I • ._ L--'- iJ a !Lo c·195°) U r,'It ;;,e~~- 776 e respectful criticism i::: that tho two c;::i.scs cited do not r.mch pronoto n.r. Kr,hangi-m. 1 s effort. I rospoctfuJ.J.::,r at7eo with Mr.. lVit.::.ki tlmt tho co,so::: arc distinguish:i,bl.o from tho present cas0, and would rospoctifully a.d.d tb.nt the;y· boo.r no hol1)ful rosombla.nco with tho r.1a.ttor at h::.nd. First, Timbo..' s ca.so I Quite ap,.-'"'.rt from tho fact that I ox1 of tho woie;hod view that tf:!.0 second headnote doos not ••.• /4 . 4 quite clo justico to the views proJ1oui1dod by ny t:culy looxnod brotllcr, the lo.to :rnw2,kzwcnclo, Jo "-G ho uv.s at t!.1e Ii1D..teril11 time, fo. ilu.1~0 to 1~cc:.d. cc.~c0fullJr wl'.!..1,t v2.::: propouncled in tl.10 jrn.lc,·cmont would lcoo ono notrn.y. T.110 lor:.::mod jvd.c:e therein uaG tci'.lking- of a genui~ l)oliof in sorcor;y-9 not necossc1ril;y- tho.t a b:::lief in sorcery w2,s not tIT1-1~or:i,son2-°1)loo J3o it as it r.iay, tho r.ioro ir:tporte.nt c,spoct of r.rinba I s co..ne, for ou.r p1·obent pui~poso, is• contained in tho fic·st honcl note, with vhich I b.2,vo no q_m. :rI'ol, and in which I am in ful1 aGJ.~oooont~ Tho sc.id f:u~st hoE'Ji note goos: "In clotornining whether an act ,me sti.:fficiont to provoke thG accuood, tho cou:l'.'t ohould consider all tho sUI'oU11ding c .iJ~cunstanco B 11 • This fo 1-rl.12-t the le,:1.l.'.'nod judge did in' TiDba I o case and I think it c~,nnot 1)o fr..ulted. I:Ic linked up tho :finding of tho lopJ•on3;· footprints ;f ~-Tilson rig:t tlu~ouc,'1:. to tho killing of Wilson's mother, vio. tho belief tlmt Hilson 11.c..1.d cc.st a spell on tho o.cousod., Wilnon's bo2.st tlmt l:o would kill tho accused like ho h2,cl killed. the o. coused' s wife, ·2,nd tho accused I s verbal . I oxchi:m,SD with Hilson ancl p\isiml attack by Uilson t1..nd his· mother, boforo tho c..ccusod fat2.lly hit Wilson's nothcr with wh.,.,_,t was described as a bo..r:.boo pole. From tho soqucnco of events one can oo..sily soc tho last_ straw in Timbo.. 1 s cc:~so 1 which {SF.WC rise to oudden .:md Q.YJ..vo provoc.::,tion. I h,wo failed to discern tho 12..st strc..1·r in the pro sent ll.i)poalo .As for STJICUS.:'.Jlr.KTIIDO FCT-T}Jl1L'J(OSI' s c2,oe I wish onl3r to roy t]12-t if an;rtJ.linG, tho holding thore goos ,-1.. g-D,i11st Mr. I(D.. l1<..u1C51-T2.. 1 s client. Thoro tho dcco2.,sod and not the O..pl)oliant 1-;c,.. s .tho ono d10 h2.Cl 1)oon mmoyocl owr a period of· time by t~io 2.. ppolJ.1.:mt ohc. dnc the docoi.sed'' s wife c1nd o..ssG.ul ting her when oho rofunod to h.cwo soXUD.l i:ntorcou:Pso with her, cul□ ir1D,ting in the t1.0002,scd finclinr; tho n,:ppcllo.nt 2,,t the docoaood' s I hone vtco 9 2.nd yet 2.. sudden 2,ttu.ck on tho ap:90110..nt w2. s, on tho f2. cts, held to bo an unl2:w:f'ul c..ct rn,1ountinG to p:i.">OVoking tho VJ11~oqui tod ••o•/5• 5 lover 1-rLo, in turn, slcyod tb.c docoa,sod. Tho c..ppollantta conviction_ . .. . , :• f"6m~~m•dor 1-i'O,c roducod to Mcl.nol,:-..uG:'1tor, on a.pI_)C2.l. TlL1,t caoc docs not help t~..c prot::ont <1ppollc,nt in n:r vim·r. lTith rospoct, the lcr.:i,:rnod t1·io..l judge in tho proocnt en.so could lmvo boon l:1QI'O cxplicity in his ro2,sons fo1· not sl.mrinc tho views of l1is 8,fJDOSSOrs. Le it lTC':,8 G'.,id in Jl":.L.!.'lill snmrr v. R. (1954) '~. 21 :.8a!':... C.l•~• 209 it is Dost dor.:i.roblo th,.~t Q, judge should rcco·rd his 1'0C',eons uhon clisa.[;-i·ooinc; with 2..ssossors, o..nd this it:: p:i,jicularly the cc;,::ic if the a.s::.:oscors h2.vo c;ivon roo..sono..blc grounds for thoix 01-m opinio;,1so Soc also CR:i..i:IT,-:-':S SDGES.'_!L:'~ v. TI., Crioin8.l L.ppo2.l No. 13 of 1983 of tho Court of Aproc,l for Ee.ct .'l.f1•icc.. ,:'ls I rooci:rk~, nocossm"ily inpliod in, ..-md cc.n be gloc..nocl fro□, his rcno.rks a.ftcr his discuccion of tho =~·olcw.,nt lc..w. With go_nuino respect I o..rn not por~.i.1d.od to D.[,"l'OO tb.2,t tho offence in this C[~oo was 1:1oroly Me,nslC,UQ.1to1·. Tlloro is a. conl'.1on fc..ctor in both Tin1xi, and . fJ-ul:::usc,ocl<indo r;Twr.rnkod, l;_-.ckinc; in K2.Giga., D..nd this is <',, last strmr, c,n tmln.ir.ful :',ct or innul t,. in ;:-, no::.•ios of mrrroundint; ci.rcurrnto..ncos, finnlly civinc rise to gi.•o.;ve c:.ncl sud.don provocction. As :Mnzo:vo,s, J •, I ,2,s ho than wv.o, J:onoxkod in L:~-EOCJK KITEK.'~ 1972 HCD No. 207, thoro 112.s to l)o a lant strrn·r, tto l;:~nt in c. series of wrbngful 2.cts (or in~ts). In tho ixcosont 02.so I -o.n unn.blo to soc sucl1 o. fo.ctor tlmt would :.~ender tho trial 001.,u•t 1 s findinG ;:-.ssailt1blo, I find thc.t tho appoa.l lacks oorit c.nd would 0,0001.•din;:;-J_y clisniss it .. DLT:tm o..t r'!TJiJ'Z,\ this 20th d2,y of Novor.11)or, 1987 • L,. H. :M.'JC!:.MC JUSTICE OF LPPF1.1.Ui I certify tlmt this is a true copy of tho origiool • . A / _ ~ 1/· ~/ ( J. H. ES li'.11'.G) Ji:~HOR DDPTJTY lBGISTTI:.R.