hussein ramadhani another vs republic 1994 tzhc 416 19 january 1994

tote -msx^Tn Ttr& m lc o f UT HTTP. HIGH CdJHD OF EJ®-' ■V7 TO. ES BMJJM, .'ppTTt.T .AiTrTri JUnlSDXCTlCEFT . jjXnjT COURT CEXittUi-L /JEPS^l ND« 60 "1993 O BlG lm , CBXlQlEi CASE NO. 643 OP 1992 0F DISHBXGT COUIlff OF ILAL& DISTRICT ^ Bofcasa* lorajwya, P rin cip a l Ifcciaorrfe Magistrate . j\ppm i£Eros 1. 2. HJSSEEH _ TT \ jaBDHfiltt S£I3SL ) ) .................. (oa^cinal v AoousoAa) . » TD rO UD «* , „ . * FlESPCOTSN® (CtrigLBol Procccutor) .T TT I) G EL E J Sorcrin feofo ( W l ) , tho oooplainartf to this » ! “ >t! joa>~ ^ o lo bob . * 0 . ® B 6895, coyote Goalona. On 13.6.91 t o . « * « * » i* * , * rathor cnployod, * * » * M ® , * » ■ «*»* « > « « * , . - e 7 q o a c c o r c lin G t o t h e s e c o n d appellant, lio wia w ith i t os a tcsaa. On 5.7.92 wcooxca.*^ fln,r^,1T „ 4- -pi-.r*✓+vo Tca*ro2?m vfc' of wio aciy*^! 1?,£Q 001-il>i^JLi^xAu 0W fanily, tetyinG t l » oonplcinanb* -------------- tllGnJ for ^ 1 u ... 1 .. , ____ %nrk V.O 1-1afl to flO to tl to around 5.00 p .n . Ho teen rotum od W , W to * * to < * * * I-Ioaquo* HO thoroforo, aooordine to hin, askod t o s o i n X d W . f t w f c appollant, a Criond o? h is , to drive tho TOta-olo and oarn. a m r l o r f u e l f o r I t (tho TO hiolo). Vbp f i r s t w i W U S B * * “ * * ■ £ • * “> ^ h i c l o and aocordinc to t o , - at am m d 8.45 P.O. « « so ebm Club, ho tk>s hired hy throo pasoongors ^ o lato r tumod ou o < lo n d lts. Ho said t o n s tho t r i a l that ttoy oftod Ida to drwo tto n t o various plaoos i » «*= ^ ^ £limUy’ "* ^ lta5° “ B° ° ,a» 1ai0r 10 ^ ' o f tho TOhiolo. Ho lo s t ooo.oiauas.Bs in tho oourso o f tho. rd H »*W ,*o n to ccsx, to ho wnfc trntt roportod tho in o t e r t to tho s 6 U « . ^ *o ll«Il»G tto ropart tho saooBl appollart w « too arrostod. * » « * * tton Jointly t o g o d and teiod fo r (1 ) Oonsptoaoj- to stool o/s 3!S4 o£ PQMa Oodo, « o ^ x t i ^ t o t b i« offonoo h o i * that < » « * » « ? aafc and t o , in 1992, in t o os Salaan Eosion, . « » appellants * * c o ^ p t o to « o ,» n o t® ^ J L c lo W . HO, B B ® 39, * V * | « t > ® ' : 9 TOO 000/<=, -ttbo ppoporty of SawtcAa o/o Msoffo j ^ ta o a at ^ . 2 , ^ 0 0 0 / ' ^ , ,Jj on 5 7.92 0# « * o * 9*30 ^ . (2 ) StforOiaG of * - t prevent an offence c/s 383 Poml i f — — 1& * - “ ..gotort « - o second aHp o it o * '* > “ • t o u m lt e ■ ._* , +•■„ -roollon ts o f tto cca e s U o a r and rtoolin e a * 0 1 t r i a l , oonvxctod -jjo ll i i n.p ri.K1» o r * T+ +i-ori ncrrfccnocd caclx ono of tLon w j » ottonoos. X* i-M » ■“ * E,o lesaraod nn6lsta»to also for oonajdjcacr/ and to four or • the •oonplaimirt i +^o -.roollanbs to pcy ali3.1j75°j000/ 150 022030 “ * * , : f a staoas w o a o a , to say, **> f o r tho stolon ecx or a e t o r _Hants* conviction TOhic lo tad « * * » « 0OTOT01 ^ and I cn not <«**> « « llM l 0 ° n “ o'"'0® 1' . T n.,, tiio ontiro docision of the t r ia l Jfco a w o lla » W w ^ ,iom inE. | _ i^Ar-rsf* 4,1"in r/O’OOcJ±> TTX«i* wl3*» WUi * ! ocOTt ^ tfcoroxoto '■' „ y ifc, HsHah, l o o n * * i 5? o f too ^PP°“1 1)01:010 00 '* 1 y •vtacatr', cvppoaiod fa r tfco S c jd d lf*/ :: AOrooato, *7Wfc* » ~~— *•■•«fX•*«*«» a»fl Mr. JtoJda, l ° ” ® a « “*> ^ '! oonplioorrts to ! . % t o t t ilo c x w d oounscl fo r tholx e ffo rt s . --r rrr— oonapteoy (SMtBoa in t L . <*• . • ^ gonoiolly , ^ T ^ io o J 1» * « - , * - good sroottoo. a sa jjp ro r f tlj0 t o rrt o f Crlninra Appo=l 151 in rEngland / ° u rm^ 1:^0 o C n . caso ^«...f.~— * - 1 ™ < * °) * « *• *• ^ * * Blnnonoroj J* at p*563*- "Sbis court has ooto -than once waanaod of tho a^igor o o ot » « toB O hero . . . o o »D »l IOMCM l0BS Tioon Z m V sw Z onl . S L . rf ^ oxo . A r t c r i t " oottors and -fco XoinjB’^n m t t o s by oCia.Be a e. * Z ^ T . « can « * „^ OTriaono°**f " io “ r s ^ - °n pooplo, ■boccacoa actoissiblo. lon^h and coaplosty of the co*o." E J -c a y . ^ +vo-oforo, i t too txnnocodoary to dhar^ ■ I „ the iu rtm * « » > » ’ fonoo o f ^ o a lin c d x * 8 > ^ ' o o f f i p i W * on 'll- ° :co TOil ^ “ t,.o oonBpteoy com* sorrod no taportoirt — 1-rit rrm :■ :t u -— — ftron on srotiool oonBicarr, io n -, -- aoH6onooiJ In rospoot . o f t:-.o -two offonoo- 00 — ooatonoo fo r sonspimoy for oonapiracy anc. 4 ^ o+o-liir end is of no, at state0* .. ncvprros into tl.o sontonce fo r stoax^, - #,/3. I J 3 a t. ;irLficanoc c t tJLX. 'At I-cpod t.'.o r^ o ro t. - t x... £i-tv_c .pronoentior trii:. ; c clo'r to oittc:/tain fondness t a r o’ r - 'c t e i i c o :* ^ e « S f^ | •cffo:-jooa« _/ ’v '• 1 p=oa noTi' to c o r n i e r -k: .o c:2 » r l its o X f* I ^ r i l l , in c o - c c i i c n - * -irL-fc! t: i c , docX iiit !. t/.o cc^ jp ira c:' count f:r_*at< UT.c. Po.-.i».l ^odo, t ^ Coos not d o firo c o n c ^ .o ; - . K.o' Xoc^ncd :x, l e t - t o adopted t'.o c f f o te rn in n:ao,olo3 J « r D i c t i o n ^ r i t ! . 2? r o r ro rn c irtio ro ” , I t 3 aegtfbou, :3i?-ok 5t:- : i s=oft* * c c:'° ^ JS^^2SSS&:^ H e s z ta T trocd O a ^ x v ^ ;: Z * ~ 7p 2 $ £ . j - 0 ^ 4 2 ) ••** '* at ^ J-,-SoCK G i n c n !■« 0, “ o (V is c o m t ».&3 o ii s a id * "OenDpi^c-'-j -jT-.or. r o c ^ d o d ac c. 'iz ri^ a , j o f tiro or ::o:?o p o r a e n n to cf'fo o t aix" arla.-niaiX tf,ot: c:.« ao t;.c r-Xtinato a ir , or o r 'c ^ a noaiis to i t , Mic t'.o cri::o io ocnpXotc i f t: .o:.’O i c £ £ ? o c ix r t . .o.c.cc. t:.c iv ^ ir.a o D t c'-scr cror-fci:; ---otQ C-Clic 2-1- . p v s c v ^ j o o c f t!.o o o i i n a t i o n cac c^aiXc^Xo to prove t: o fr,ot c f t: c cfpoor-oirt1’ . (:i~ uiidorcoorii\\) '• r. J . - Ti-Q Ticcio olo. loirt f c r a oorspirac;r ic , cooc-virr;. t c t. c c.j<vvT) d e fin itio n , an e^poczai - i ^ Of ecrss.o, 'fe in t o:ca c- - i i a 'r:oc. -® irfo rro d f.o r £ o to (S o o , o «;,< ■>>. df.;.*,-;: ^ ou^ 3 C L itoction i n t : i c c ro c ic s u~a c^. c v ^ c g : :cnt \tL t : ± r . t:..o c1e f - . i r . t i c r . a t. t o u t .lc v o p r o ^ d ? Iiv t :.o cl c r . ;o c C io c t, t : .c ro ia .ro o p a o ifio aot e llo a a a as c oito t i t v.t i i x , a n £ ^ o o : x ) ^ to o to c d . t ! .o v o l i c l o in t :.ic ocso. i or n ’. i a c o r n n o t: i ^ , fro a t :.o oryidoiioo i r c i o r ' t i : - , t : / 1 t!..o a r^ .o ll:.irfc 3 a ^ o c c . to a t o c i l t :.o v c : , i c : . o . E .o lo c ^ :. ;r t ; i c t r to d o o id o f l t : , c t t : . c r o Txao a o o r x s p ir c x > r esC tor c l i r o o t i : : , . : . o r - B 3l f a0 fo V .a ia t- 51 , , , > < • • • • • > • n x U n t i i r , tI..o & c r o d o fir it io n (x r o it :31c,olc* s La"T D i c t i c r r : : - " ) t! i o o c r„ *t f i n d ^ t! t. o f-o to o f t : .0 . O 'a d cI-'OTG. s:.cnn3 o o it o p ir z c -~ . E..:.a or.n • Vo ir fo r r o d ir. tI .o f ct t: :.t t:.o ooociid aoorflod (soocud r ^ p e lla -ii) '.k b t: .o oro t: o ocr cHoro ’0 7 r:-r. 1 f o r <xssC:'Bt^j3 VJ30 i n IxiDinooo, ’F.'.o 5?oc0 ^,i ’ _o /--vx) f o r "iv:-:.v; i t to t?.o fi^’ ct aocrjscu, i . s . or. 1"itnr:■•Eitc^Tiars. •'rJO'JU.ido prosalod t.'.o ccvut j. ...c. t o e . . c» lo t c f p c iiJ S t o f i ” d out f r o r t:.o ^ r d a o o u a o d u ,.c rG poctodly t . l^ o d o f d ^ r r i t o r i v r fpo-icla ( x * i i r t o ’- ) . T .at :.o ro:.lX-- ooccrt lir ^ ic rzxm C . ^.rtiXa. 'Z-.z b 2 rx , ocT.icod s. id : .o : ~-d , .01^3 f o r p r - f ’0- 3; ^ ic ^ :.o f'cTTO t ::.3 ado-7t> oar to t : . o 'l o t aoor.sod t o use out i t disa^poarod<. E.o 2 nd aooi-iJod :.ad Ijooh ds?iV3.n: t-.o abcr/o v a dodo air.CQ ^ • -° *r" ° p ru ^o o fte n c B -O m i l e , tl-.on t: .in t:~ ^ - '-Q 2id it - 4 - purposely so thcvt ho creates an a lio i "but ho had intontionally gone to frayors assuning ho did and gxsro tba 1st accused tho vohiclo aft or afjpocing "to steal ‘tho sac©* _ This was dono by tho fir s t aocusod. Tho first, accuscd ....... explanation is a lioas bocnusc i f ho was givon the oar to drive bocouse tho 2nd aocascd wont fo r prayers and ho said tho tine ho drove o ff the 2nd aocusod t^ihaok^-Hkjr £±& f)Ct ho hand bin tho vohiclo ovon tho 2nd tj.no? Ho alleges tftG' tho 2nd accuood was talcing dupe which is doniod by12nd ao TMr. 1st accuscd said nothing about being tiod up with ropos in his dofenco in chief though ho raisod it when XKD by tho. prosocution* LVon assuning ho trac tiod up, ho nanagod to release hincolf, why did ho not trlco the ropo to tho polio© - Station?, I f ho was tied up and injurod to tho extent of ,< being unconscious why did not ho have the nodioal roporfc or show any narlcn of violcnoo? This choirs that his story is just a hoccc. Wiy would 2nd aocusod go hono after getting •: nows of tho thoft and not to Polico Station? In. otl'.or words X. find that tho 1st count is proved against both accuso3fr*j Q2ho loomed nagistrato nay bo ontitlod to tho abcrvo viows. So no, hoWGVorf ifhay ancrunit to nothing noro than noro speculative argunonts0 iis noted above ? thoro is no positive or oven circunstantial ovidonoo fron tlio prosocution sido to show that tho two appellants agreed to stoal tho cooplainant* s vohiclo# Tho charge shoot, as noted already also, alleges no act constituting an agroonont to steal the vohiclo by tho appellants* A« for the natters in tho passago above roproduood iron tlio judgncrrfc o f ii-o loarnod Magistrate I do not undorstand the case of tho socond appollantt ■to bo that ho had no oxplamtion for his handing ovor tho vcMclo to tho fir s t appellants Ho explained that ho wanted hin to drive tho vohiclo to oom noncy for petrol. Tho natter of *£unanitcrian grounds” wos not tho roason fo r his giving tI:.o vol-ido to tho fir s t appollant. To ny iunclor— standing tho second appellant, by saying that ho gave tho vohiclo to tho first, appellant on hunanitarian grounds, he noant that he gave tho vohiclo to hin (f ir s t appellant) boocsuso ho trusted hin as a hunan being should trust another hunan being - ospooially because tho fir s t appellant was rolativo or friend* That is how I undorstand tho phraso "on hunanitaria: grounds’1 as usod by the second, appellant* I t is not that what r.iade hin givo tho fir s t appellant the vohiclo were hunanitr*i?ian considerations? that is not ny understanding of tho statonont. % understanding of it. is that ho gave the vohiclo to cam nonoy for petrol whilo ho (the socond appollant) wont to tho noscnio, To this there is no ovidonoo fron tho prosocution to contradict. Indood. a ll tho analysis in tho passago abovo £pon the judgncrrt of tlio loamod Magistrate is mi analysis of weaknesses in tho dofonce case* There is' no analyic of any prosocution ovi4onoQ supporting the charges against tho appoHants * -Eioro nay thorcforis hofWG boon iroaknossos indoed in tho dflfonfib caso, but, as it is oftoaj - 5 - a OOOTictxon shculc. bo not even a p * - Brt on tho veotaoss of the ^ fc n c o . E m oM6 * tho prosocutxon agaxnst ^ „ r o U e a on m » the fa c t of tho ^ dglilaBstt« * B, and b o c w * disappeared, they rolxod. ^ ^ CCOTl ^ w * thpy * * > » 3 « * « 1 those osplanatxons vere / . ^ ^ ^ ap^ oa<ih. I n w m , c o n c e rn fo ile d . £ oofflptoMy ^ a p p o llo ^ view, there was no ovxdonco a . <->11 provxr* x H ... +i^t offonce therefore wore bad xn la * . x axx 'Eb.oir oorwxctxons fo r tLuvt oxxono^ appod in re latio n to that offonoc. _ , % . +llG loarracl nagistrate le d hersolf- ;« Cosine no.? to thosecond count, the lo^noc. ras* „ as follows*- \ ^ fo r tho(£nd couat « . 1 . « * * » « « ■ » • '1 tho 2nd aoauEOdsavo tho. * r t ooouaod tho dbcm accused so.1 a id not return t:,o sane. Hxb story _• that ho was rohbod tho scno I have s -id xt i s a * M +^n Pnd countfollow s iiftor provine conspiracyto s t o d tjo outonatic a lly so i t is proved.” _ ^ By th is lo c io , I vould say that havinc hold that conspaxaoy « • « * . , sto-ii™-. «autonatically’,; floes a ls o . But looking at t cose ^ + ? o T s t i ” T v - o t h o l the t o s t appellant1s story thr.t ho vas a Vholo tho quostxo -- ^ t r i f a oourt aisb o U a w d robbed of tho TOhxolo xs to be tasbelxevOL. ^ „ ltmoo 0t t^o •«i-nT. tlicro wore no Hacks of vxolenc tho story bGoauso^x ^ ^ ttpEoUflJrftB person. But in €al^ T T tta* ocODission of all.robberf.os loaves behind n W - z ^ io = T f i a ,* t o e c ^ d a . unconscious, there ™ i d h ^ b o c n ^ t o to strueGlo and leave oaxks of “ altogether tho f i r s t appellant-s defence as a * o l e , I o-mot s_y ^ ^ "bolief • Ho could have boon ro ^ o d 01 tho vehicle as a fJ ° is no prosecution evidence to cUsprave h ie testinovy on how disap^axed. » U b o i ^ the case I ^ the a ^ in re latio n to tho offonco of stealxne as.-noil. . xn the f i ^ l resu lt I allow tho ontixo appeal, ^ ^ o f the appellants fo r censpiraoy (count i y ‘T ^ U^ a .°t a f oomonsation, X sot aside the sonbonoos ™ * “ * V ^ iapodiatoly unless and direct that tho appoUBBte be reloaso.. Cxcn 3-xx they ore hold thoro fo r another ta r fu l ca.se. - 6 - X: would also observe, in conclusion, -fcfcat -this caso Bfoould Ixavo %' loon toougrt ns a c iv il ease rcsthor t t o a 6 a O riEim l Caso-as i t W * „ bro u ^ t. ® d* i* *> *» *> ts-o fco«s axo in t o noro with a & , H o r t K » . > fo r rooovory of conpcnsati® for.ttio 1«M of « io voliiolo - ttaa m S i a enso. « < * is « r I- - < * i * ■ * * " * * * ■ toTO 1100,1 nor° aPEr^ priate than a Crininal Case. Appoal allowed, Sorrfccncos of inprisomciit and order of conpcrv- sation .quashed. / ■4*. U dm KTAHDO m m r es salaam 1 9TH JAMJA11Y , 1994 . -----------5 2 S1E Ear. tlio Republic •* Miss Lwasia, State A tto rn e y --------- ;------ ®co? 'fcl'io Appellants ~ person* Qcuarfc* Outline nt doliv'erecU