19940000 TZCA Mwanza

. ' --~ i! IN THE COUR_T OF .ii.PI'Ei.L OF Ti.1:H-Zl1Nii~ if! MWi1NZ4 ·CRDID~.AL ill'PE.AL NO_. 138 0F.1993 BIUl'WllllllN .YUSOF JOHN•· •.•.•. , • •. • • .•.•. O· .•.. : . . . . . . .bi'PELL.t.NT •-Ah'D '.THE'RllliUBLIC •..•. , •..,. ·• .•..• '• , •..,. '• , •. ~. RESPOlmEN11' ·- :·-(~pv<ral from tho ·'oonviotion and sentence r o-l tho High Oou.rt ··o:f'-Tanzariia. e.t Mwanza.) (Mag,eohe1 J ,i) de;to·d the '.12th d~ of .M82'oh1 ·1992 ·in · .Hl-9®0 9£~&n!A ;dtJ?P2!1 N~~ 199 of .. ·'1990 '! · JHI?OlllMBlNT ·oF 'l'HE .COURT .&i.t the oonolusion of ·holll.l'ing this a.ppoal at Mwanze. le.at Daoombor, wo aJ.lowod tho appaaJ. 1 quaehod tho oonviotion and.sot ! .,' ,. a..-1,a -tho BOnton-oo with an ordor roloae~g tho a,ppollant from ·•. prison unloes ho wae otherwise lawfully detained.·· Wo rosorved our roaeons which wo now prooood to givo~ Tho appellant 804 aovon othors woro oha.rgod with robbory I with violenoo. :rivo of thcim 1n·oluding tho a.ppoilant wore oonviotod em. sontonood to 15 yoars imprisonmont by tho Distriat Oourt st &onsoroma. Tho appollant aJ.ono a.ppoaJ.od against his conviotion to tho HiSh Court e;t Mwanz& whoro Masanoho; J-. :l dismiaaed tho eppoaJ. but onhenood tho sontonoo to 30 yoara impriaomnont holding that thst we.a the minimum eontenoo providod .. ... l . . ,f i ·, I 2· by law. •~a.inst-this decision, tho_ appellant further appoalod, to this Court·· c.'lellonging both his· conviction ·anli tha enhanced sontonco of·30 yoa.rs imprisonment. Tho robbory took plaoo on 19th Doocmbo,;', 1989 on Leko · -: Viotoria. 1n tho oourso of which a nwnbor of fishnote WOJ'.O .foroi1lly . and violently stolon from tho oomplei.nant 's boe:t by' bandits in a boe:t boa.ring rogistration No. MSR 2675. In tho oourso of this robbor,y, tho a.ppollant was so.id to ha110 boon idontifiod by two w1tnosso11 to bo tho person who actually. firod tho ~ o t s e.t tho ro't>004· 'lfoe.t; aooord.inB to somo aocount, . oomplot~ly. ~ashing its bow. · Somo olovon or twolvo c'l'Vs la.tor, tho appollant•s · fishing villego was visited by tho oornpla.inant in tho comp~ of poiico ottioors. Tho villego huts wore soarohod and in tho appollant I s hut wa.s found a.-ropo which had rod pa.int. It was tho:retoro oonoludoc'l that tho ropo waa pert of tho .f'isbnots . Which had boon stolon 1n tho oourso of tho :robbar,y against . tho oompla.:lnant•s boat. In tho boat, MSR 2675, which we.a aJ.logod I. to bolong to tho appellant, woro founc'l moro fishnets. T,ho triaJ. Court as woll aa tho first appolhto Court founc':. tho appellant to havo boon involvod in tho robbery. ~n throe ma.in grounds. . .-~st the:t ho had beon adoque;toly idont.ifiod a.'t tho scono, secondly that a ropo found 1n his hut was positivoly identifiod to havo boon part of the stolon tislinots and lastly that tho bost MSR 2675 usod · in tho ro'bboiy bolonaod to him. Howovor, in his own dofonoo,.t~o g~ . e.ppallant doniod to hm,o boon pa.rt of tho L which. robbed tho. oomplainant•s boa.t. Ho c.eniod being ownor of tho boe;t usod in tho robbor,y and ea to tho ropo foune. in his hut, ~o sa.ic. thBt it . · bolongod to him and ho pI'Oduood tho rooaipt in rcspoot thoroof • . • 3 We think e.n oonsido1·0.tion of tho evidonoe th&t the. l , o ~ judge on first appeal ~1ro0<3eded -~n too many a;ssumptions';· On the ,./ ' question of the aa,pc,llant 1 s identifioation at tho eoem,: the lea.med .. judge .bad.....the following to. _say., . .:Aga.in when tho oonfronta.tion took pla.oe~,- tbs 11 appellant was tbe one whe· fired the shot bitting the 0th.Gr boa.t, and it wa.e a.t 0.,3" P•.m.· El.i.roly those who g9':t fired at ll!U9t have seen tho shoo.tar well J ~ must l:ia.ve been eurioua to find out who tho shof,ber was~ .Aga.ill the aa;,pella.nt and bis group a.otually tied the witnesses tdth ropes a.rd. let them fl~t a;;.,ra.y into (e:Lo) the lake. &.lrely while doing the ty:t.na- up, tha witnesses $Xld. the ~llant and his group lllUSt have lo~d eaoh ,tther in the fp.oe". lFe think .with :ros;poot that the lea.rnc,d ju46') 1 s reasoning is Upside down. He should 110t· ha.ve assumed the appellant t!' be the oulprit azid then find re a.sons to justify this a.sSWD,Pti~ It shew.d have been the 111ther wa.y round. He should ho.ve started with Oil'Oumeta.noes whioh woulc$. justify the oonolusi,tn that it was the a:ppellant who fi:L'ed the shots~ As 1 t is, there is no e'Videnoe to justify the finding that despita the vie3,enoe that tbe :obbera oxhibi tea., tha viotims rema.:ined su:ffioiontly ~ to Aeerve the ~rson wbo let ~ the salvo and ren to wait to satisfy tbeir ouriousity to find .~ut w~• actually fued tbe SUJl• Ye tlwl.k the 0entra.t7 is more likely that t~ v1,ienoe e111p~d by the :robbers prtduoed tha opposite .fft'~ot io.~• fea.r and oonfus:l:,F. ~•n the pa.rt of the :vietima, making aoourate identif:l.oation ~ • ; _r . ' 4 ii · I 'llle learned judge ma.de another faotual error which unfortunately tended to strengthen the ca.ea against the appellant. He stated and we quotes "'rbe bouso of tho a,ppollant B"Ot sea.rolled. Ala.stin it ~re foU?ld somo four fislmets with identifioation ma:rks that belonged to ·Ki ta.no 11 • · · -··-·----··· No :fishnets wel'O found and recovered from tha app$Uant•-s · . · house. Only a. rope ua.s found in the appellant I a house and this waa ola.imed by the appellant. · The red pa.int :ft,Ulld en it could not p1'0va that it belone,'e<i to the complainant.· '1h8 appellant beld. an equally strong olaim· to it. The fishnets linked to the appellant were found in the boa.t MSR 2675 whioh both the trial ~ a.nd the first flc'Ppolla.te Court found it belonged ti,"'tb!· appellant. The loa.rned j\ld88 stated, "'l!le boat bore rogistra.tion No. MSR 2675. At the Fishar:l.es Officn, it was diso<YV8rod that the boa.t. belonaed tc, .l'Usuf bim&Glf' the 8i1)pellanil 11 • is the loa.rned judge' will no doubt realise on mfleot~t- this~wa.s·~- evid.onoe a.s ne-body from. tho. Fi~ries tttioe waa oalled te "testify on· this point. · The ownership of the boa.t vu· tbriefeN not esta.blishod by erodible and admissible e:videnoe. tn our View therefore all the tbroo fa.otors whioh fo:med the buie for the appeilant 1 s eonviotion oa.n ea.s:i:131= be demelisbed a.e we ha.vu attempted to do in the oou:rse of this judgement. Mr. Magoma. loamed Senior Sta.to Attorney whe, a.ppearod f'-.r . tl:le .:Bepub lio~ did not fNppe'rt tho appellant 1 s oonvioti.Gn and f£ the reasons· whioh we have gi wn we agree with his stand• • . I I / L'-. / '/ 5 It is fer these reasons that we felt that the o.pp&lla.nt 1 s oomriotion oo~d not be sustai~,d hence we directed that tba appeal be a.llewed, tba oonviotien: be quashed a.nd tha.t the appellant bo relea.sed :from prison forthwith unless he wa.s being .... " - . held•~' some et.her lawful ground. DA'lED at MW'ANZA. this da,y et'_· 1994•.· : . L. M. MAD>«@ . . JUSTICE !C1, A!P.mil, L. -M. •MF'ALILA . JUSTialil OF, APl'EA;H, I ee':rtify tha.t this is a true oopy of the r.tj.ginal. • .. ~ L;. B. KALECmYA. SNil'IR DEPUTY BEOIS'mA.ll --••N•---•-•••N+ I I• •