mahamudu juma vs republic 1993 tzhc 205 2 november 1993

j® SSS TX(£r.' GddRS? qe1 ’ ■ * ’ >A? m i ESr& fiU JG i APPELLJjiTiJ JimiSDIO^Oir h ig l jcjxu'j QEuicouj -apphat, --"0 , 153/92 (-Ji’ora origin al Criminal Caco ITo, 1^2 o f 1992 o f the Diatrxo* Co^-i o f Baeancff* BLcrtaio* & Bggamoyo) E*ji».iaLEEEiLa, sm:« ia c z ijr o s/o <r,.^ ........ .. .juppET.T.pm (O rigin al Aoousodj versus SEE- UIOZCBD HEP'IDLXG 4.. . ♦HESPONDENT ■D Q II 13 JT n IQELul » e appellants I W o * B/ » J ;aa, was ohargad with unlawful posse onion o f "Khsag" 0/j 2(h), Oap.134 o f the EroSiM tion o f irosioas H arts, -.a aaaaded Jot Ma,4Ag87 . « was oo.-wioted hy the m steio* 3ra=t o f Basanoye on h i, em plea o f B u ilt aad senteuood 3 ya3t0 ^ r r * t o i " S4 S y * " O O C T lf fiio “ « * « » . * appesUd -o ta is ooort. Ill h is m m e c ^ a e f appeal he sat eut 5 3Mundfl tat aw-jad ^ ;aa aMra<rtpft ^ ^ M S, and indeed «T f d , o o « t to arnald*, anddooida w ith e r or not the appellant nade u n a^A w O . plea utaci ths t r ia l senior district ^ ^ fee a p p a lls olaima that h is lffiob lm that eoumted from h i. O .al^ .jvjd is the abnoraalitr h is aind a* evidm eed V :f C' r ‘' " i0 a a i W a r ta a , tO M rat the w j w , a? « * * . E « t to « w « r t Of * 4 a he did n ,t Jengr'rt.thw w~ioe .i u irith hhan& or oi^ qraattes. On tlio th ^ d .W a i “ •' ^ Jwrtas cdnttfedlw Aas tha -i:.3is-sr .ie -i:,,t ;.e TOB in pocseraion of & ***& , adoUtad -that ha saobsa oiffiea-ltoo. On the 5th around stated that is ic a psyoMatrio p.Tiimt and. in wppart ^ this he attached. a aedioal ; a ^ M ([ aad erratio o^aial lioiiarioci;. Jvuriiog.atsbaa^ i>n 22A /l< m +%0 t ' a ^ ?■■ Xa*®v «U te i«e d « » . , _ "°d « • » • AWottejr ”Ew B«I»rtlio- ctoaa not aippor-i cc:ivi3-;ion. Appellant was uemtalljr sio- L'-.o-e ig svidenoe though not produced ctoin^ t e ia l- Psychiatric patian-fe. The B«itta 0a « . 3 yeapa is ffloeasivs, I * his served ois ^ a th s a l - Qady and ire xind that ia suffioioat period*0 ! l ! l W , T a t S i abm r3’ LW a a 1' ^ fir-13d « * » » * iB J * -0OT3 • support K . a -Ka previous *.*aJUwt«M Hade ty t e " x ; r : r to a l l 0i J*ooedure ia i, 1530 aiatoa « n m Z T u - *C. m tTe e n ^oomriofed ^ ° “ on * ^ “ M''-=0d pl(Ja ^ P" o “ a ^ * - P l^ e i eroept onsgpt a3 to the extent or v A “ ooae toi aC~a te — -elr Old act ^ l e t- e ,~ at — *, ’ j s z z l umrartma- * « i o o ^ « , * „ * . _ plea oa i;c ^ “ T ” fact as p t t » M4l0al Mpart l0 ^ oomasio;i f* uw m d n eaa of Mad, i t lB fco? the 0:f justtO0 * ° that new -p - x . jus cxoe to Je-conm r}qy a t^ c v « , * » ! f t r t or eviasnoa aad ^ , ;1 ^ ^ ^ to t'-o oMa. Steday ^ Sle appellalrt ^ ^ ^ advan-baja of Scaring from hda aa * e th e r ;.0 ’ 'io-ra 1/1 -k h 4»art s* „■ ». at happened to Mu,. * -« » » ^ a n ^ s j Ea ao obsmvoa ^ damsaootnr* i „ satisfied, aa xt seams to have, appeared to xoa -b-nt *,« • a lri^ ^ . ^ ^ ^ i *ert Je i s not mentally ->Q Aas admiirted i)o lie t w *h* 4—4 -, « M » J® rleaaoix aMOn taat t w he , vas oauA^*fc m t1! 1’ P10^ n- 4 ^ ^ oonvioted , what -•i 3 statemoat oontradiote ** * ^ of appeal u io h concludes thua ls t -a t -p ^ u ,. a o n ; hlo ;,“ VTh ao,2io'a opeairo, I ajn PC^.adoa io believe th at tl» a :r e -^ d d n iJ 'L ^L-’‘T ’*b." *im.^ not ^ * * * * “ » ' ra3 ail the «ms poltoa vary u a j . ^ ^ ^ ^ to ln c Wixo ,E0iie. Coaasqubat upon th* laW oj jcoaiM th . * 3M*i; .-.v-.-.,,. *._ x*** ' QppQllajtrt roifijvt :ic*VQ aa?PMOiated t:,e faot that he traa ■wets ueo^ . u bo^ccre a oourt o f law niI P i a o o i i W * *' " v - - agaiasrt a»j?«ll*ajfc omti&t W ■lbs liQpul&io's ypayer to q i i ^ the oo2CTlo«i(m tftt&lflpt'; aeofrgcpe passed against ths appellant* In tlia re siCLt he rfkwi^fl "be relaaaed 3ccrt£uitUfii unless lie is beamed for ot^oo?- lawful L c j& m JOB® | iZ11/ 1^3 Judganout Otflivgreft la 1k» abscwoe of 43ae part lags t&© fe notified f e r 6Z4ri.tIi# in. chambers at 2nd day of' llovcaJaea^ 1993 at Jfesr ®a Salaaiau ■ A 3 tes I oeaHtiU^' *kaa4 th is 1# a trm,loopy of the osis&ial* S an aa' '