charles simon mziray another vs republic 1996 tzhc 33 5 june 1996

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA AT DAR ES SALAAM APPELLATE JURISDICTION HIGH COURT CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.154 OF 1994 ORIGINAL CRIMINAL CASE NO. 85 OF 1993 (OF T H E DISTRICT COURT OF ILALA DISTRICT AT KIVUKONI) (BEFORE KAGANDA S. ESQ. .RESIDENT MAGISTRATE ) 1 . C H A R L E S SIMON MZIRAY] 2.ABDALLAH C. ATHUMAN J .............................. APPELLANTS VERSUS T H E U N I T E D R E P U B L I C ............................. R E S P O N D E N T (O R I G I N A L P R O S E C U T O R ) KALEGEYA. P R M (Ext. Jurisd. ) JUDGMENT ^ D e c e m b e r ' 1993 Appellants, Charles Simon Mziray a n d A b d a l l a h C. A t h u m a n , (herein- - a f t e r s t y l e d 1st and 2nd A p p e l l a n t r e s p e c t i v e l y ) found t h e m s e l v e s t o g e t h e r w i t h one R a p h a e l P e t e r M a p u n d a (who d i d n ' t a p p e a l ) b e i n g sent to j ail u p o n c o n v i c t i o n b y K i s u t u R m's C o u r t o n a s e v e n y e a r t e r m of i m p r i s o n m e n t e a c h for R o b b e r y ( s n a t c h i n g a T o y o t a C o r o l l a s a l o o n v e h i c l e by force) c/s 265 a n d 286 of the P e n a l C o d e r e s u l t i n g f r o m cr. c a s e N o . 85 of 1993 w h i c h had. j o i n t l y f a c e d t h e m (on a c h a r g e of A r m e d R obbery) as 1st a c c u s e d ( Raphael P e t e r M a p u n d a ) , 2nd a c c u s e d ( C harles S i m o n M z i r a y - 1st A p p e l l a n t now) a n d 3 rd a c c u s e d ( A b d allah C h i k i r a @ A t h u m a n - 2 n d A p p e l l a n t ) . D i s s a t i s f i e d w i t h t h e s e c o n v i c t i o n s the A p p e l l a n t s have d e c i d e d to t r y t h e i r l u c k b y p r e f e r r i n g the p r e s e n t appeal. A l t h o u g h t h e i r m e m o s of A p p e a l s ( a d d i t i o n a l g r o u n d s a d d e d t h e r e t o at the time of h e a r i n g of the a p p e a l i n c l u s i v e ) d e t a i l l e n g t h y a r g u m e n t s t h e y can s i m p l y be s u m m a r i s e d as follows. ? K ^ t:Lu 9 W l t h g r o u n d s c o m m o n to b o t h A p p e l l a n t s , t h e y c o n t e n d that t h e c o n t r a d i c t i o n b e t w e e n PW1 and Sgt B o n i f a c e (Pw7) is f a t a l f°r w h i l e the f o r mer says that the y o u n g m e n w h o t o o k a w a y his v e h i c l e at g u n point w e r e t h r e e the l a t t e r talks of four e x p l a i n i n g that this was the r e c o u n t i n g of the e v e n t /n ?*"» t he f o r m e r a nd that t h e r e f o r e this s h o w s that he (Pwi) d i d not p r o p e r l y i d e n t i f y the culprits as much as he 2 f a i l e d to g i v e t h e i r full d e s c r i p t i o n at the p o l i c e s t a t i o n h e n c e u n r e l i a b l e as a w i t n e s s ; that at C h a l i n z e R o a d b l o c k the th e v e h l c l e t h e y w «re in e s c a p e d a n d t h a t this p r o v e s t h a t he w a s th e o w n e r a n d c o n t r o l l e r of the s a i d vehi c l e * t h a t no e v i d e n c e w a s a d d u c e d to s h o w that t h e y w e r e in a n y w a y c o n c e r n e d w i t h the c h a n g i n g of the f i g u r e s o n n u m b e r p l a t e s or g l a s s e s , a n d f i n a l l y t h a t the p r o s e c u t i o n d i d n o t p r o v e t h e o f f e n c e u p t o t h e s t a n d a r d r e q u i r e d by law. O n t o p of t his, the 1st A p p e l l a n t ( M ziray), s u b m i t t e d t h a t h a d he b e e n one o f t h e c u l p r i t s P W 1 w o u l d h a v e d e s c r i b e d w h e r e a n d h o w he w a s s e a t e d in the v e h i c l e u p o n b e i n g h i r e d a n d n a t u r a l l y w o u l d h a v e i d e n t i f i e d h i m at t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n parade; that in a b s e n c e of a n y o t h e r c o r r o b o r a t i v e e v i d e n c e his d e f e n c e that he h a d j u s t b e e n a p a s s e n g e r m the v e h i c l e as he h i k e d a lift s h o u l d h a v e g i v e n h i m the b e n e f i t of d o u b t i n s t e a d of the t r i a l c o u r t c o n v i c t i n g h i m o n t h e b a s i s of the d o c t r i n e of r e c e n t p o s s e s s i o n a n d m o r e r »3 r t t6r PW1 h a d i d e n t i f i e d the c u l p r i t s in t h e n a m e s of 2 n d A p p e l l a n t a n d o n e R a j a b u (who w a s 1st a c c u s e d a n d w h o n e v e r a p p e a l e d ) . H e c i t e d S a l e h e S e l e m a n VR (1972) H C D N. 2 3 t h a t m e r e p r e s e n c e at the s c e n e does n o t n e c e s s a r i l y m a k e a* p e r s o n a p a r t y to the offe n c e . O n the o t h e r hand, the 2nd A p p e l l a n t c e m e n t i n g his a r g u m e n t s , a d d e d that he w a s f r a m e d up by p o l i c e b e c a u s e he r e f u s e d to b r i b e t h e m w i t h s h s . 4 0 , 0 0 0 / = t h e y r e q u e s t e d for, a n d f i n a l l y that in any c a s e t here w a s no a r m e d r o b b e r y and if a n y t h i n g it w a s a m e r e o f f e n c e of theft. M i s s M k w a w a , l e a r n e d S t a t e A t t o r n e y , for the R e p u b l i c / Respondent responded on all the Appellants' arguments c u m u l a t i v e l y b y a d v a n c i n g that t h e i r c l a i m s are b a s e l e s s as the o f f e n c e w a s p r o v e d b e y o n d r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t s as r e q u i r e d P W l ' s e v i d e n c e w a s c lear as r e g a r d s 4 p e o p l e w h o h i r e d him; t h a t he e v e n gav e d e s c r i p t i o n of h o w t h e y w e r e s e a t e d in h i s vehic l e ; that t h e y c o u l d not e x p l a i n h o w t h e y c a m e to b e m the v e h i c l e w h i l e it w a s p r o v e d t h a t A y o u b n ? ? t h e .d r i v e r - R e p l y i n g further, M i s s M k w a w a s t a t e d t h a t t h e a l l e g a t i o n of a 4 0 , 0 0 0 / = r e q u e s t for b r i b e is t h °u 9ht; that w h i l e 2nd a p p e l l a n t w a s f u l l y i d e n t i f i e d p a r a d e l s t a p p e l l a n t w a s found in the s t o l e n v e h i c l e a n d t h e e x p l a n a t i o n s he ga v e of h a v i n g bee n in a b a r w e r e by, h is (a n d o t h e r s ) f a i l u r e to p o i n t o u t the p l a c e s .wher\ t h e y w ere c a l l e d u p o n to. She c a l l e d u p o n the c o u r t to d i s m i s s the a p p e a l s in entirety. B e f o r e v e n t u r i n g into the a r g u m e n t s I h a v e this to say. In t h £ Vn r ^ ln 9 A p P e i l ants and Raphael, a f t e r M E R E L Y s u m m a r i s i n g « * \° n d e f e n c e e v i d e n c e i n c l u d i n g s u b m i s s i o n s (wh i c h w e r e e f f e c t e d in w r i t i n g ) by b o t h A C P E.T. M a h e n g e for the p r o s e c u t i o n a n d Mr. Chacha, A d v o c a t e for the d e f e n c e , the t rial nnUfha~'^ y c o n c l u d e d w i t h o u t the s l i g h t e s t a n a l y s i s or c o m m e n t on the e v i d e n c e as p r e s e n t e d ! For c l a r i t y on w h a t I m e a n let the trial c o u r t s r e c o r d s p e a k by i t s e l f : - 3 " I h a v e c o n s i d e r e d the g o o d a r g u m e n t s f r o m b o t h the P u b l i c P r o s e c u t o r and the A d v o c a t e and t h e i r g o o d r e s e a r c h o n the c a s e cited. H a v i n g g o n e t h r o u g h t h e m I s ee t he issue on i d e n t i f i c a t i o n h a s b e e n a r g u e d w e l l b y the A d v o c a t e but no s u b s t a n c e a r g u m e n t w a s m a d e on the issue of d o c t r i n e of Recent possession. T h e e v i d e n c e g i v e n shows c l e a r l y t h a t aft e r the s t e a l i n g the PW1 b e c a m e a s u s p e c t of c o u r s e t h e r e a r e m a n y s u c h c a s e s b y p o l i c e w h e n d r i v e r s b e c o m e vic t i m s . B u t t h e n the a c c u s e d w e r e found two d a y s later w i t h the s u b j e c t m a t t e r and w h e n e x a m i n e d c o u l d n o t g i v e g o o d e x p l a n a t i o n o n h o w t h e y came into p o s s e s s i o n of it. To m a k e it m o r e w o r s e the v e h i c l e w a s g i v e n d i f f e r e n t i d e n t i t y b y f i x i n g n e w p l a t e n u m b e r s ................... I t h e r e f o r e a g r e e t o t a l l y w i t h the p r o s e c u t i o n s ide t hat b e i n g f o u n d w i t h p r o p e r t y w h i c h is not e a s y c h a n g e a b l e f r o m h a n d to h a n d like the car, the o n l y i n f e r e n c e is that t h e o n e f o u n d in p o s s e s s i o n is the o n e w h o c o m m i t t e d the offence" W i t h u n f e i g n e d r e s p e c t to the trial C o u r t the a b o v e q u o t e d fa l l s s h o r t of e v a l u a t i n g e v i d e n c e as r e q u i r e d by l a w for it l e a v e s us m d a r k as t o w h a t f i n d i n g w a s m a d e o n w h a t s u b m i s s i o n i n c l u d i n g e v i d e n c e . A l t h o u g h w o r l d w i d e over the " scale of j u s t i c e " is the c o m m o n s y m b o l u s e d to p o r t r a y the role of a C o u r t - t h a t it has to s t a n d in b e t w e e n , e v a l u a t e a n d b a l a n c e two c o n t e n d i n g "parts" b e f o r e r e a c h i n g a c o n c l u s i o n — it ca n ' t be a p p l i e d m e c h a n i c a l l y as w h e n w e i g h i n g g o o d s o n a w e i g h i n g m a c h i n e as c o n c l u d e d by the c o u r t supra. A n d this is m ore so w h e n the p r o s e c u t i o n and d e f e n c e , each, m a d e s t r o n g s u b m i s s i o n s as c o n t e n d e d b y t r i a l court. I n d e e d this o f f e n d s the r e q u i r e m e n t s u n d e r s. 312 C P A w h i c h a m o n g o t h e r s c l e a r l y d i r e c t s " E v e r y j u d g e m e n t s h a l l ....... c o n t a i n t he p o i n t or p o i n t s for d e t e r m i n a t i o n , the d e c i s i o n t h e r e o n a n d the r e a s o n s for the d e c i s i o n ...... ". Now, w h a t s h o u l d this c o u r t d o in t he c i r m s t a n c e s ? G e n e r a l l y it h a s b e e n h e l d t hat e v e r y j u d g e m e n t s h o u l d s t a t e the facts of the c a s e e s t a b l i s h i n g e a c h fact b y r e f e r e n c e to the p a r t i c u l a r e v i d e n c e by w h i c h it is s u p p o r t e d ; a n d it s h o u l d give s u f f i c i e n t l y a n d p l a i n l y the w h i c h j u s t i f y the f inding" (citing A m i r a l i I s m a i l v R 1 TiLox RE X V L u l a k o m b a 3 E.A.C.A. 43 and W i l l i a m H s a k a v R (1968) H C D 216 this w a s o b s e r v e d and a p p r o v e d in R v S u n a (1971) In a l l .t h e s e c a s e s the c o u r t s h e l d that t h e r e ex i s t e d , in the r e s p e c t i v e j u d g e m e n t s , i n a d e q u e n c y w h i c h led to f a i l u r e of justice a n d the s o l u t i o n w a s to a l l o w the a p p e a l s a n d o r d e r i n g r e t r i a l in some. Al s o , in R v H e z r o n s\o M a g a r i (1970) H C D 148 w h e r e the C o u r t a m o n g others, held, I m u s t say at the o u t s e t that the j u d g e m e n t of the t r i a l M a g i s t r a t e is u n s a t i s f a c t o r y . O n e c a n n o t s t r e s s too s t r o n g l y the i m p o r t a n c e of s u b j e c t i n g e v i d e n c e to 4 a n a l y s i s b e f o r e a r r i v i n g at an y c o n c l u s i o n u p o n it. It is not e n o u g h m e r e l y to set out conclusions without s e t t i n g o u t the p r o c e s s of r e a s o n i n g w h i c h has led to them. T h e r e w a s no a n a l y s i s of the e v i d e n c e in this c a s e " a r e t r i a l wa s ordered. H o w e v e r in J o h n s\ o George and another (1971) HCD 390 w herein was observed, "T h e j u d g e m e n t n e i t h e r c o n t a i n e d the p o i n t or p o i n t s for d e t e r m i n a t i o n nor the r e a s o n s for the decis i o n . W h e r e t h e r e is c o n f l i c t i n g e v i d e n c e or w h e r e the e v i d e n c e t e n d e r e d by the p r o s e c u t i o n is d e n i e d b y t he d e f e n c e and the d e f e n c e gives a d i f f e r e n t v e r s i o n , it is the d u t y of the trial c ourt to a s s e s s an d e v a l u a t e the e v i d e n c e an d g i v e some i n d i c a t i o n s w h y it a c c e p t e d o n e p i e c e of e v i d e n c e in p r e f e r e n c e to the other", the c o u r t c o n c l u d e d that t h o u g h this o f f e n d e d s . 171 (1) of C P C ( p r e s e n t S e c t i o n 312 (1) CPA) it di d not c a u s e a n y f a i l u r e of justice. T h e c o u r t r e f e r r e d to s. 346 of the C P C (then) n o w s. 388 (1) C P A w h e r e it is p r o v i d e d that "no o m m i s s i o n or i r r e g u l a r i t y in the j u d g e m e n t is f a tal u n l e s s it o c c a s s i o n s f a i l u r e of justice". I h a v e c a u t i o u s l y an d c a r e f u l l y look e d at the c i r c u m s t a n c e s of th i s p a r t i c u l a r cas e a n d in r e l a t i o n to S . 312 (1), s . 388 (1) C P A a n d t h e v a r i o u s a u t h o r i t i e s on a s i m i l a r issue a nd I h a v e but c o n c l u d e d th a t the p r e s e n t fa i l u r e by the t rial c o u r t to a n a l y s e the i s s u e s a n d e v i d e n c e has not o c c a s i o n e d the f a i l u r e of j u s t i c e to w a r r a n t d e c l a r i n g the d e c i s i o n a nullity. In fact, a p a r t f r o m the fact th a t m o s t of the c a s e s c ited were u n i q u e in t h e m s e l v e s , like R v S u n a w h e r e not e v e n a line of j u d g e m e n t w as w r i t t e n (!) it is m y c o n s i d e r e d o p i n i o n th a t courts o n a p p e a l s h o u l d t r e a d c a r e f u l l y o n th i s q u e s t i o n as in an a t t e m p t to cure i n j u s t i c e m a y e n d u p c o m m i t t i n g mo r e injustice. Imagine a s i t u a t i o n w h e r e the e v i d e n c e p r o d u c e d g l a r i n g l y e s t a b l i s h e s a n o f f e n c e b ut m e r e l y b e c a u s e the t r i a l c o u rt s i m p l y jumped o n c o n c l u s i o n w i t h o u t a n a l y s i s a n d c o n v i c t e d , the fin d i n g is d e c l a r e d a n u l l i t y an d p o s s i b l y d u e to lapse of time or rel a t e d r e t r i a l is not a p r o p e r o r d e r to m a k e or r e t r i a l is o r d e r e d but th e n the p r o s e c u t i o n c a n ' t t a k e o f f e i t h e r b e c a u s e r e l e v a n t e x h i b i t s have d i s a p p e a r e d , s t o l e n or c a n ' t be t r a c e d or w i t n e s s e s h a v e died. O n the o t h e r hand, it is an o p e n s e c r e t that in most c a s e s o r d e r i n g a r e trial, s u r e l y r e - s u b j e c t s an a p p e l l a n t to the v e r y k n o w n o r d e a l of a t rial w h i c h in m a n y a time m a y be far from d o i n g h i m justice. In m y v i e w ther e f o re, u n l e s s the o m m i s s i o n or i r r e g u l a r i t y m the j u d g e m e n t is of the natu r e as the one c o m m i t t e d in R v Suna c a s e (supra) w h e r e a c t u a l l y no j u d g e m e n t was w r i t t e n a C o u r t o n f irst a p p e a l s h o u l d r e s o r t to its own a n a l y s i s of the e v i d e n c e m o r d e r to a r r i v e at a p r o p e r finding. M o r e o v e r , this d u t y is not a n e w o n e - as law dictates, the first appellate court has 5 to m a k e its o w n c o n s i d e r a t i o n a n d vie w s of the e v i d e n c e t e n d e r e d in the t r i a l c o u r t as w h o l e a n d m a k e its o w n d e c i s i o n t h e r e o n { D i n k e r r a i P a n d y a v R (1957) E.A. 336 c i t e d w i t h a p p r o v a l in E mma d \ o M w a l u k o & 2 o t h e r s v R (1976 ) T L R . 50}. T his is w h a t I p r o p o s e to d o in this case. N o w for the e v i d e n c e tendered. PW1 ( M a t h e o T h o b i a s ) d e p o s e d t hat o n 1st F e b r u a r y 1993 b e t w e e n 2 .30 a n d 3.00 p m he w a s h i r e d b y 3 y o u n g m e n f r o m N B C F o r e i g n B r a n c h T a x i s t a n d w i t h i n Dar es S a l a a m city, to a p l a c e a l o n g S h e k i l a n g o R o a d at shs. 1 2 0 0 / = b u t u p o n r e a c h i n g this d e s t i n a t i o n t h e y t h r e a t e n e d h i m w i t h a pist o l , t e m p o r a r i l y t ied h i m w i t h a rope a c r o s s his n e c k a n d was d r o p p e d off the V e h i c l e a f t e r t h e h i r e r s h ad d i s c u s s e d a n d d e c i d e d not to k i l l him. T h e y r u n o f f w i t h the Vehicle. He s h o u t e d for h e l p but o n l y PW3 ( Dora), a lady, w h o r e s i d e d n e a r b y came to his help. PW1 w a s the d r i v e r of m \ v Reg.No. T Z A 326 T o y o t a C o r o l l a S a l o o n b e l o n g i n g to P W 2 ( A t i l o K i s a p i ) and w h i c h w a s p l y i n g for h i r e as T axi t h o u g h n ot so licenced. PW1 i m m e d i a t e l y r e p o r t e d the i n c i d e n t to the n e a r b y U r a f i k i p o l i c e station. S u s p i c i o u s of the m a n n e r the v e h i c l e w a s s a i d to have b e e n stol e n , the p o l i c e , as is c o m m o n l y done, l a n d e d PW1 in r e m a n d a n d c h a r g e d him. N ine d a y s l a t e r he w a s r e l e a s e d o n l y to find t h a t the s t o l e n v e h i c l e h a d b e e n recovered a n d o n 10\2\93 w a s called upon to a t t e n d an i d e n t i f i c a t i o n p a r a d e at w h i c h he i d e n t i f i e d 2nd A p p e l l a n t a n d R a p h a e l as h a v i n g b e e n a m o n g the t h r e e y o u n g m e n w h o h i r e d h i m and s u b s e q u e n t l y s n a t c h e d a w a y the vehicle. P W3 d e p o s e d that she s i m p l y came to the aid of PW1 w h e n he s h o u t e d b ut d i d not see the v e h i c l e nor the o c c u p a n t s but h e a r d a s o u n d of a s p e e d i n g v e h i c l e as she was i n s i d e the h o u s e then. A s to h o w the V e h i c l e w a s reco v e r e d , PW5 (C.5107 Cpl. All y ) t e s t i f i e d h o w o n 2\2\96 he and o t h e r p o l i c e o f f i c e r s at C h a l i n z e t h e y w e r e c o m m a n d e d by their b o s s to mount a r o a d b l o c k a l o n g the h i g h w a y f r o m D ar es S a l a a m as t h e r e w ere r e p o r t s of the f t of a T o y o t a l a n d c r u i s e r Reg.No. T Z C 141 w h i c h t h e y did. A t m i d n i g h t a T o y o t a C o r o l l a Saloon, w h i c h w a s the o n e s u b s e q u e n t l y p r o v e d t° 'be the o n e s t o l e n from PW1, p u l l e d at the r o a d b l o c k and a m o n g the o c c u p a n t s w e r e R a p h a e l as d r i v e r , the A p p e l l a n t s and a n o t h e r y o u n g m a n . PW5 w e n t on to say t h a t t h e y b e c a m e s u s p i c i o u s of the v e h i c l e as the d r i v e r c l a i m e d to h ave left the d r i v i n g l i c e n c e a n d R e g i s t r a t i o n card at Dar es Salaam; the I n s u r a n c e c o v e r r e v e a l e d s c r u b b i n g \ s c r a t c h e s t h o u g h Reg.No. of the v e h i c l e i n d i c a t e d w a s T Z B 1192; the p l a t e n u m b e r w a s not at its u s u a l p o s i t i o n o n the v e h i c l e but p l a c e d b e s i d e s the d r i v e r w h i l e a n o t h e r o ne c o v e r e d w i t h red s e l o t a p e r e v e a l e d Reg.No. T Z A 326 w h e n t he s a i d s e l o t a p e w a s r e moved. A p p e l l a n t s and R a p h a e l w e r e d u l y a r r e s t e d , sent to C h a l i n z e p o l i c e s t a t i o n t h o u g h on the w a y d u e to o v e r c r o w d i n g in the v e h i c l e and as the v e h i c l e s l o w e d d o w n at a c u r v e the y o u n g m a n escaped. P W 4 , Asst. In s p e c t or Anne, t e s t i f i e d h o w she o r g a n i s e d and supervised an identification parade at which only Raphael and 2nd A p p e l l a n t w e r e i d e n t i f i e d by P W 1 . PW6 was the o f f i c e r i\c at 6 C h a l i n z e P o l i c e s t a t i o n w h e n A p p e l l a n t s w e r e a r r e sted. B o t h PW6 a n d 5 e m p h a t i c a l l y s t a t e d that R a p h a e l a t t e m p t e d to e s c a p e at the p o l i c e s t a t i o n a f t e r s w i t c h i n g off the l i g h t s b u t w a s o v e r powered. P W 7 is a p o l i c e o f f i c e r w h o i n v e s t i g a t e d the case. He t es tified that upon receiving a report concerning a stolen v e h i c l e he i n t e r v i e w e d PW1 a n d d e c i d e d to c h a r g e h i m as u s u a l l y in s u c h c a s e s d r i v e r s m u s t be m a d e suspects. H i s f u r t h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n s t o o k h i m to T I Z O gue s t H o u s e w h e r e r e p o r t s h a d it that, o n e R a p h a e l wh o w o r k s t h e r e had b e e n s e e n in p o s s e s s i o n of a s t r a n g e v e h i c l e t h o u g h his w h e r e a b o u t s t hen w e r e unk n o w n . On 5 th F e b r u a r y 1993 he p r o c e e d e d to C h a l i n z e o n r e c e i p t of r e p o r t s of p o l i c e i n t e r c e p t i o n of a s u s p i c i o n s v ehicle. I n d e e d he fou n d R a p h a e l a n d A p p e l l a n t s u n d e r c u s t o d y and he b r o u g h t t h e m t o g e t h e r w i t h t he v e h i c l e to Dar es Salaam. This v e h i c l e s n a t c h e d f r o m PW1 a n d i n t e r c e p t e d at K i b a h a h a v i n g b e e n i d e n t i f i e d by the o w n e r PW2, he r e l e a s e d P W 1 . In d e f e n c e R a p h a e l and A p p e l l a n t s c l a i m e d t hat t h e y w e r e m e r e p a s s e n g e r s as t hey h a d h i k e d a l ift f r o m Kiba h a . 1st A p p e l l a n t s a i d that he h a d g o n e to K i b a h a to see a f r i e n d w h o had p r o m i s e d to s h o w h i m a s h a m b a on s ale but t hat w h e n he a r r i v e d t h e r e h i s ( f riends') w i f e a d v i s e d h i m to f o l l o w h i m at C h a l i n z e w h e r e th e s h a m b a w a s s i t u ated. He got a lift in a s a l o o n car t o g e t h e r w i t h 2nd A p p e l l a n t o n l y to be a r r e s t e d at the R oad Block. T he 2nd A p p e l l a n t s a i l i n g in t h e same b o a t as 1st A p p e l l a n t s a i d that he h a d a s k e d for a lift as d i d 1st A p p e l l a n t in the same v e h i c l e and at the same time a n d place, Kiba h a . He f u r t h e r s t a t e d that t h o u g h a r e s i d e n t of D a r es S a l a a m he had a r r i v e d at K i b a h a from M o r o g o r o in s e a r c h of his m e n t a l l y ill b r o t h e r , and that h a v i n g m i s s e d h i m he d e c i d e d on s e a r c h i n g for h i m at C h a l i n z e . As did 1st A p p e l l a n t , the 2nd A p p e l l a n t i n s i s t e d that h e wa s just a p a s s e n g e r a n d that the d r i v e r of the V e h i c l e w a s not R a p h a e l as d e p o s e d u p o n by PW5 but O m a r y w h o w a s r e l e a s e d b y PW5 hims e l f . R e g a r d i n g the a l l e g e d e s c a p e of O m a r y they m a i n t a i n e d that PW5 t o ld lies for he r e l e a s e d h i m h i m s e l f h a v i n g g o n e w i t h h i m to u n k n o w n d e s t i n a t i o n from the a r r e s t i n g point. R a p h a e l ' s d e f e n c e was l a u n c h e d a l o n g s i m i l a r lines. He had d e p o s e d that he h ad b e e n p i c k e d up by one O m a r y w h o w a s d r i v i n g the T o y o t a C o r o l l a s a l o o n on r e p r e s e n t a t i o n that t h e y w e r e g o i n g to C h a l i n z e to c o l l e c t his b u n d l e of k a n g a from his ( O m a r y s 1 ) w i f e w h o c o n d u c t s kan g a s e l l i n g b u s i n e s s a n d to w h o m he (Raphael) h ad p r e s s e d an o r d e r for the same; that at Kibaha, i n c l u d i n g 1st A p p e l l a n t , he had a s k e d for a lift o n l y to be a r r e s t e d at C h a l i n z e r o a d Block. As to P W 1 's i d e n t i f i c a t i o n at the p a r a d e t h e y a r g u e d t h a t this w a s p r o m p t e d by the fact that he had seen t h e m at C I D ' s office. In the s u b m i s s i o n s by the p r o s e c u t i o n and de f e n c e , w h i c h s u b m i s s i o n s w e r e m e r e l y a p p r e c i a t e d by the trial cou r t by just a s t r o k e of a p e n but not d i s c u s s e d at all, the f o l l o w i n g was presented. had Z - that " 1 ^ x k : d; that p w i L • h i s d a y to d a y d u t i e s t h a t „ J J ? £ fj W a S °n c e ^ f a i t h f u l in v R (1971) H rn 1 4 1 f ™ i r . h 1 in Cases of A nd rea R ( 1 9 6 7 ) H r n 1 q.j- r h a n j a ? 1)f L u d o v i c o Kashmir,, „ l u n r e p o r t e d ) . r v C h amfiqit', (1Q70) w e n T^n ^ P/Pea3T 1W o '— £ 1 $ \ 83 340), E l i v a k n » h » r . nUy^l V , " ^w r o n 9 i y c i t e d as M qfiq ) __2ft hnforu lI u ; "1- and ? lbo"qft 8aMdhani v P identification by a sinale wiVn ‘ f o u n d o n e v i d e n c e of a b s o l u t e l y w a t e r tiaht • i88 e v i d e n c e s h o u l d be m i s t a k e n i d e n t i t y by ’d i s c l o s i n g * mY ®x c l u d e t h e P o s s i b i l i t y of id e n t ific a t io n and L c l u d e the9 p o s s i b i l ^ t v ^ ^ »j!“ tu.r “ °£ confused state of mind during id e n tific a tio n * v ic tim 's Davies 3 v V 7n P P ° " p r „ Cj acha> learned Advocate , quotina M o rrii, argued that PW1 ?.L . ■ “ H - i bY H. F t h o u g h l a t e r th e c h a r a e ws<? c h a r g e d as f i r s t s u s p e c t t h e r e f o r e h i s e v i d e n c e reauirp*; r ^ 1S- 3n a c comPlice and Appellant, that a s h e w a s T o t a n d 3S for lst his defence should e n t it le him to acq u ittal PW1' S 9vldence o t h e r Thhandr 0 m r i « a ? S e d eStPh0ant '" t l l ' l " f “W i » the c o r r o b o r a t i o n a n d U " c o u l d n o t be e x p e c T a " / ,d ° V " 0 t • re<luir8 a r o u n d a s t h e i n c i d e n t w a s s u dden; that P W l ^ s i d e n t ? , W ^ n S S S e S R a p h a e l , a n d 2n d A n n e l i d * - .“r 1 s l d e n t i f i c a t i o n of untainted a"nd ™ a r a n \ ^ d aW and e fe t net “ h «a t i°tn Parade W3S d e s i g n as o t h e r w i s e 2nd accu«?«H n a 1, * was Just bY i d e n t i f i e d a s well- that th« I Appellant) would have been regarding evidence of a s i n g l e S i i l ^ S S ' S S i ' T Precauti ° " = as the incident took p l a c e I t da“ ™ L ?ha? a f ^ " thiS ° aSe other persons who waro r h a r n ^ me, t n a t as is t h e c a s e w i t h to i d e n t i f y 2 n d a c c u s e d at t h « ' n * h !!t a ^ d i n g f a i l u r e of PW1 r e d h a n d e d in c o m p a n y of o t h e r s ineinrf V1Dn 9 ,b e e n a P P r e h e n d e d driver of recen t l y stolen ve£l e u n ^ 8 ^ 6 1 - W h ° W 3 S the p o s s e s s i o n (c i t e d M i c h a e l R ^ « 7V T r r T i^1 "® °f r e c e n t N g a l v a v R (19761 L R T 451 hi~ guilt if 1 . and Nafta1i a f f a i r a * he o n to s u b m i t t h a t the A D D e l l a n f « «v!?i * ‘ \ P r o s e c u t i o n went t h e y f a i l e d to p o i n t o u t the 3 °nS d c o n f l i c t e d as Kibaha when giving ?heir -a n d p e r s o n s t h e y v i s i t e d at o f f i c e r a n d t h a t th i s c o u p l e d t0 * t h f R e 9 i o n a l c r i m e s p e r s o n s as w i t n e s s e s do not t a k * t-h f a i l u r e to c a H those d o c t r i n e of r e c e n t p o s s e s s i o n ^ lnCh aWay from th* analyse J h i T I v i ^ ^ f a b o ^ . t h e ^ i a ! c o u r t d i d not b u t in so d o i n g I w i l l l ? s o A i . Z t . ? , 1S d U t y 1 h a v e n o w to do p r e s e n t e d b y the A p p e l l a n t s d l s c u s s ^ e g r o u n d s of A p p e a l as T h e e v i d e n c e of PW1 as r e g a r d s the i n c i d e n t s t a n d s o u t : 8 : u n c o n t r a d i c t e d t h r o u g hout. It is not d i s p u t e d that the car w a s s n a t c h e d a w a y fr o m him. T h e o n l y q u e s t i o n is w h e t h e r it w as R a p h a e l a n d A p p e l l a n t s w h o d i d so. The i n c i d e n t t o o k p l a c e in a b r o a d d a y l i g h t - he e s t i m a t e s the time w h e n he w a s h i r e d as b e i n g b e t w e e n 2 . 3 0 and 3.00 pm. H i r e r s of a car n a t u r a l l y have to fa c e the p e r s o n to be hired, h a v e to n e g o t i a t e the t e r m s a n d c o n d i t i o n s of hi r e i n c l u d i n g c harges and d e s t i n a t i o n b e f o r e t h e y e v e n e m b a r k u n t o a v e hicle. A l l this time, h i r e s an d h i r e d a r e in c l o s e v i s u a l p r o x i m i t y . T h e n t here f o l l o w s e n t r y i n t o t he h i r e d v e h i c l e - a g a i n in c l o s e p r o x i m i t y and in the p r e s e n t c a s e m o v e d for a c o n s i d e r a b l e distance. I n d e e d it w o u l d be a s u r p r i s e , and c a n o n l y s u r f a c e in e x i s t e n c e of c o n s p i r a c y to c o n c e a l s o m e t h i n g if the h i r e d was, w i t h i n a s h o r t s p a n of time like 10 days, to be s h o w n the p e o p l e w h o h i r e d h im a nd he c l a i m e d t h a t he d i d n ' t r e c a l l them. T h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of R a p h a e l a n d 2 nd A p p e l l a n t b y PW1 at the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n p a r a d e c a n ' t be a n y t h i n g el s e but a n a t u r a l s e q u e n c e of visu a l r e c o l l e c t i o n . As r i g h t l y s u b m i t t e d b y the p r o s e c u t i o n the d e f e n c e ' s c l a i m t h a t PW 1 r e q u i r e d c o r r o b o r a t i o n by o t h e r w i t n e s s e s p r e s e n t at the s c e n e is b a s e l e s s . 1st, i n v a r i a b l y , in m o s t cases, c r i m i n a l s d o p e r p e t r a t e t h e i r cri m e s w h e r e t h e y feel that t h e y w o n ' t be e a s i l y i d e n t i f i e d b y public. In t h i s case o n l y PW3 w a s at h a n d an d e v e n t h e n she w a s inside her h o u s e a l t h o u g h she h e a r d s o u n d of a s p e e d i n g v e h i c l e and P W 1 's cries. To i n s i s t that in o r d e r to h o l d PW1 as credible t h ere should be other witness in t he c i r c u m s t a n c e s w o u l d be incredible. This is the c a s e a l s o w i t h t h e d e f e n c e ' s d i r e c t a t t a c k on the p r o s e c u t i o n case a i d e d by a s t r i n g of c i t e d c a s e s that P W 1 's ev i d e n c e r e q u i r e d c o r r o b o r a t i o n as e v i d e n c e o f a sin g l e w i t n e s s , that he s h o u l d have g i v e n d e s c r i p t i o n of how the c u l p r i t s were s e a t e d a n d t heir ap p a r e l ; that as he w a s c h a r g e d he is an a c c o m p l i c e a nd last that he w a s a hostile witness! W i t h r e s p e c t to the d e f e n c e ' s h o m e w o r k in p r e p a r a t i o n of the s u b m i s s i o n w h i c h h i g h l y i m p r e s s e d the trial court, w h i l e all the a u t h o r i t i e s c i t e d i n d e e d p r o n o u n c e the la w as it e x i s t s n o w t h e y are not r e l e v a n t to the p r e s e n t case. To s tart w i t h the n e e d for c o r r o b o r a t i o n and w a r n i n g on e s e l f w h e n e v i d e n c e of a s i n g l e w i t n e s s is involved. As I h a v e stat e d a b o v e the o f f e n c e w a s c o m m i t t e d in a b r o a d d a y l ight and the A p p e l l a n t s , R a p h a e l an d PW1 w e r e in c l o s e p r o x i m i t y for a c o n s i d e r a b l e time. T he c a s e s c i t e d w e r e d e a l i n g w i t h i n c i d e n t s w h i c h took p l a c e w h e n p o w e r s of v i s i o n w e r e i m p a i r e d - A n d r e a v R (1971) HCD 141 . the i n c i d e n t t o o k p l a c e at 10.00 p.m. a nd there w a s just a t o r c h light; in L u d o v i k o —K a s h a ku v R the incident wa s at n i g h t as w e l l a n d w i t n e s s e s m e r e l y a s s e r t e d that they had r e c o g n i s e d the a c c u s e d w i t h o u t e x p l a i n i n g h o w t h e y so c o n c l u d e d in that darkn e s s ; in C h a n d g _ s a i d v R, the c o u r t w a r n e d of p o s s i b l e h o n e s t m i s t a k e n i d e n t i t y o f the a c c u s e d by a wit n e s s but a g a i n it wa s at night; ^-n Bv—C h a m t i q i t i __(.1970) H C D 343 a gain the v i c t i m w as shot to d e a t h w i t h an a r r o w at n i g h t and there was e s t a b l i s h e d that t h e r e w as no m o o n l i g h t at the time; in 51iva & o t h e r s (1972) H C D 101 9 for the c o n f u s e d state of m i n d of w i t n e s s e s it w a s a lso at n i g h t a nd w e r e b e i n g g u i d e d by m o o n l i g h t and t o r c h f l a s h h a v i n g b e e n a s s a u l t e d w i t h s t i c k s and p a n g a on hea d and in K i b o n a e R a m a d h a n v R (1969) H C D 28 the e v i d e n c e i n v o l v e d w a s that of a c h i l d of 10 y e a r s o n an in c i d e n t w h i c h took p l a c e at night). W h i l e sti l l o n this I s h o u l d r e s p o n d to the joint A p p e l l a n t s ' c o m p l a i n t that w h i l e PW1 t a l k e d of h i r e r s b e i n g 3 PW7 said 4 a nd tha t t h e r e f o r e this s h o w s tha t he w a s u n r e l i a b l e , di d n ' t p r o p e r l y i d e n t i f y t h e m c o u p l e d w i t h his failure to d e s c r i b e wha t c l o t h e s t h e y put o n and h o w t hey l o o k e d like. A p a r t f r o m the fact that the n u m b e r of h i r e r s is not r e l e v a n t , P W 7 's t e s t i m o n y r e g a r d i n g this w o u l d m e r e l y be h e a r s a y and in a n y c a s e the l e a d i n g e v i d e n c e is that of the eye w i t n e s s , P W 1 . For t h a t m a t t e r the l e a r n e d State A t t o r n e y ' s s u b m i s s i o n o n a p p e a l t h a t P W 1 's a s s a i l a n t s w e r e n a m e d by h i m to be 4 is not correct. At the s a m e t i m e PW1 c l e a r l y t e s t i f i e d o n h o w the i n c i d e n t t o o k pla c e in a b r o a d d a y l i g h t and that he f u l l y i d e n t i f i e d the p e o p l e w h o h i r e d him. He was abl e to i d e n t i f y that it w a s the 1st accused, R a p h a e l (who d i d n ' t appeal) who w a s h o l d i n g a p i s t o l and s e a t e d be s i d e s him w h i l e the 3rd a c c u s e d (p resent 2nd A p p e l l a n t ) w a s the one who tie d h i m w i t h a rop e a r o u n d his n e c k as they d e l i b e r a t e d w h e t h e r or not to kill him. He d e s c r i b e d all this in his testimony. In a n y case at an i d e n t i f i c a t i o n p a r a d e he i d e n t i f i e d the 2nd A p p e l l a n t and R a p h a e l w i t h o u t h e s i t a t i o n . If he w a s just a mere g u e s s i n g i n d i v i d u a l he w o u l d h a v e p r o c e e d e d and i d e n t i f i e d a n y ot h e r p e r s o n p r o v i d e d the n u m b e r t a l l i e d w i t h that he had mentioned. O n the q u e s t i o n of i d e n t i f y i n g t h e i r c l o t h e s and their f e a t u r e s non e of the w i t n e s s e s c l a i m s that at any g i v e n time, b e f o r e i d e n t i f y i n g t h e m at the p a r a d e , he was a sk e d a nd failed to so e x p l a i n or that he so e x p l a i n e d c o n t r a d i c t o r i l y . W h i l e not s u b s c r i b i n g to the p r o s e c u t i o n ' s s u b m i s s i o n that "such an i d e n t i f i c a t i o n w o u l d be r e q u i r e d o n a d i s p u t a b l e c h a t t e l and not a h u m a n b e i n g b e f o r e the court" as t ime and a g a i n suc h d e s c r i p t i o n s f o r m basis of c o n t e n t i o n s in cou r t and in m a n y cas e s have led to a c q u i t t a l s and c o n v i c t i o n s w h e r e relevant, in the p r e s e n t cas e I fin d the sam e •not r e l e v a n t at all on the facts adduced. T he o t h e r facet of the c ase of K i b o n q e R a m a d h a n i vs R (1969) HCD 28 c i t e d b y Mr. Chacha, lear n e d C o u n s e l , on the n e e d for d e s c r i p t i o n of the p a r t i c u l a r s in i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , is not r e l e v a n t for the sam e r e a s o n s e x p r e s s e d above. As for the def e n c e a r g u m e n t s that PW1 was an accomplice; h o s t i l e w i t n e s s , w h i l e w i t h due r e s p e c t I fail to u n d e r s t a n d w h a t wa s m e a n t b y "hostile" her e for a " h o s t i l e w i t n e s s " in law is c l e a r l y k n o w n a n d at no g i v e n mo m e n t did PW1 come e v e n closer to its d e f i n i n g b o u n d a r i e s , I hav e to c l e a r l y sta t e that PW1 c o u l d not be c a l l e d an a c c o m p l i c e in this p a r t i c u l a r case s i m p l y b e c a u s e he w a s c h a r g e d b e f o r e the r e c o v e r y of the v e hicle and arrest of R a p h a e l and A p p e l l a n t s . T h e r e is not e v e n the s l i g h t e s t e l e m e n t c o n n e c t i n g him w i t h the theft of ? W 2 1s v e h i c l e save that he was the victim due to his being its driver when it was stolen. Due to p r e v a l e n c e of car t h e f t s and at times to c o n n i v a n c e ( : 10 : b e t w e e n d r i v e r s a n d t h i e v e s the p o l i c e h a v e d e v i s e d this m o d e of o p e r a t i o n w h i c h i n deed in m o s t cas e s is u n j u s t to h o n e s t d r i v e r s l i k e PW1. To s h o w the r e a l i t y b e h i n d this let us h e a r PW7 as to w h y he c h a r g e d PW1 u p o n r e p o r t i n g the theft, "We d i d not b e l i e v e of the d r i v e r ' s s t o r y so we f r a m e d a c h a r g e a nd t o o k h i m to court. T h a t is b e c a u s e it is a c o m m o n hab it for d r i v e r s to c h e a t t h e p o l i c e - anyho w we continued wi t h investigation". W h a t is in the a b o v e q u o t e d to m a k e PW1 an a c c o m p l i c e ? N o t h i n g . It is s u r p r i s i n g that the l e a r n e d d e f e n c e c o u n s e l h a v i n g c i t e d the c a s e of D a v i e s vs D P P and i n d i c a t e d the d e f i n i t i o n of an a c c o m p l i c e thus, " P e r s o n s are a c c o m p l i c e s w h o are p a r t i c i p e s c r i m i n i s in r e s p e c t of the a c t u a l c r i m e c h a r g e d , w h e t h e r as p r i n c i p a l s or a s s e s s o r i e s b e f o r e or a f t e r the fact", w e n t on to i n s i s t that PW1 fa l l s u n d e r t hat d e f i n i t i o n ! It is t r u e that in c r o s s e x a m i n a t i o n PW l ' s e m p l o y e r , P W 2 , d i d s a y that in 1992 he (PW1) d i d not k e e p p r o p e r a c c o u n t s w i t h an e x p l a n a t i o n t h a t it w a s due to n o n p a y m e n t by c l i e n t s w h i c h he lat e r r e i m b u r s e d b u t this is a d i f f e r e n t m a t t e r a n d d o n ' t m a k e h i m an a c c o m p l i c e i n this p a r t i c u l a r case. W h e t h e r a n a c c u s e d is an a c c o m p l i c e o r not c an be g a t h e r e d f r o m the c i r c u m s t a n c e s s u r r o u n d i n g t h e c o m m i s s i o n of the a l l e g e d o f f e n c e , in p a r t i c u l a r his r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h the o t h e r a c c u s e d p e r s o n s { A M A N Y I S Y E M W A N D A G A A N D 3 O T H E R S V. R, (1976) LRT NO. 14}. As for t he i d e n t i f i c a t i o n parade, a p a r t f r o m PW4 a d m i t t i n g that she d x d n ' t i n f o r m the A p p e l l a n t s and R a p h a e l t hat t h e y c o u l d ca l l relatives'^friends or a d v o c a t e to w i t n e s s it, w a s c o n d u c t e d p r o p e r l y . P W 1 d e p o s e d h o w he m o v e d f r o m the C I D ' s o f f i c e o n l y to find the p a r a d e a l r e a d y arranged. If it w e r e t r u e t hat t h e y w ere t o g e t h e r in t h e C I D ' s o f f i c e before, d e f e n d e d as t h e y were, they c o u l d not h a v e f a i l e d to raise t his in c r o s s e x a m i n a t i o n . I find that PW1 i d e n t i f i e d R a p h a e l a n d 2nd A p p e l l a n t n o t b e c a u s e of any o t h e r i n f l u e n c e but u p o n r e c o l l e c t i o n of h a v i n g s e e n t h e m as they h i r e d him, d u r i n g the c o u r s e of d r i v i n g t h e m and d u r i n g the theft of the v e h i c l e he w as driving. C o n c e r n i n g the s t o p p a g e of the s t o l e n v e h i c l e at C h a l i n z e road b l o c k a n d the f i n d i n g of R a p h a e l and A p p e l l a n t s in the said v e h i c l e this is not d i s p u t e d at all. H o w e v e r o n e of the d i s p u t e d f e a t u r e s is w h o w a s the driver. PW5 t e s t i f i e d t h a t it w a s R a p h a e l w h i l e the d e f e n c e m a i n t a i n s t hat it w a s the y o u n g m a n w h o e s c a p e d un d e r the a i d of P W 5 . R a p h a e l a n d a p p e l l a n t s s a i d that PW5 m o v e d w i t h the d r i v e r , l e a v i n g o t h e r s behind, to u n k n o w n place and a f t e r a w h i l e r e t u r n e d alone w i t h the keys and a p o l i c e o f f i c e r d r o v e them to the p o l i c e station. PW5 says that the y o u n g m a n e s c a p e d w h e n the car s l o w e d d o w n at a cur v e as t h e y w e r e fully p a r k e d ( s e v e n of them). I have the disadvantage of not having s e e n PW5 d e p o s e , a n d as p o i n t e d out b efore, the t r i a l court did 11 not a n a l y s e the evidence, but a t h o r o u g h a n a l y s i s of the e v i d e n c e on r e c o r d lea v e s me c o n v i n c e d that he is a c r e d i b l e w i t ness. His evidence runs s y s t e m a t i c a l l y , on how th e y w e r e two p o l i c e officers at the R o a d block, h o w t h e y s t o p p e d and i n t e r v i e w e d Raphael and A p p e l l a n t s an d the fourth person, h o w t h e y c h e c k e d the T o y o t a v e h i c l e d i s c o v e r i n g s u s p i c i o u s marks, h o w s h o r t l y after th e y w e r e j o i n e d by 3 o t h e r p o l i c e officers; h o w R a p h a e l and A p p e l l a n t s p l e a d e d w i t h t h e m to accept m o n e y and r e l e a s e t h e m and how the y o u n g m a n w h o h ad c l a i m e d to be a s t u d e n t e s c a p e d on the way. His e v i d e n c e that R a p h a e l a t t e m p t e d to e s c a p e at the police s t a t i o n as their p a r t i c u l a r s were b e i n g r e c o r d e d is f ully supported by P W 6 , w h o was on d u t y as an o f f i c e r i\c of shift. I hold that it was R a p h a e l w h o wa s d r i v i n g the s a i d vehicle. W i t h all this in p l a c e let us now t u r n to the p a r t i c u l a r question, that is the g u i l t y or not of the A p p e l l a n t s (and Raphael). The t rial c ourt s i m p l y said that it w a s s a t i s f i e d w i t h defence s u b m i s s i o n on i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . A l t h o u g h it d id not say so in so m a n y w o r d s (which led to u n c e r t a i n t y to the e x t e n t that the Appellants in this ap peal s t i l l a rgue on it) the t r i a l court seems to have c o n c l u d e d that t here is i n - s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e of i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of R a p h a e l and 2nd A p p e l l a n t by PW1 b u t p r o c e e d to co nvict t h e m o n the p r i n c i p l e of recent p o s s e s s i o n alone. However, as I h a v e a l r e a d y d e m o n s t r a t e d , it was s u f f i c i e n t l y proved that R a p h a e l and 2nd A p p e l l a n t w e r e a m ong the three youngmen w h o h i r e d PW1 and s u b s e q u e n t l y s n a t c h e d the T o y o t a Vehicle from him. W h a t a bout the 1st A p p e l l a n t (Mziray)?. As the evidence goes he w a s not i d e n t i f i e d by PW1 as h a v i n g b e e n a m o n g the p e o p l e w h o h i r e d him. He did not i d e n t i f y h i m at the i d e n t ification parade although surprisingly in his (2nd Appellant) d e f e n c e but not in appeal he seems to say t h a t he was! It is not s u r p r i s i n g t h e r e f o r e that in his i n d i v i d u a l g r o u n d s of appeal he a r g u e s that had he b e e n one a mong the t h i e v e s PW1 w o u l d have i d e n t i f i e d him; and on the q u e s t i o n of r e c e n t p o s s e s s i o n he says that his e x p l a n a t i o n s of h a v i n g a s k e d for a lift is sufficiently put to e n t i t l e h i m to a c q u i t t a l and c i t e d Sale h e Seleman case (supra). * W h i l e I am c o n vinced, that S e l e m a n i ' s case c i t e d is irrelevant b e c a u s e the c r i m e w a s c o m m i t t e d at S h e k i l a n g o a nd not at C h a l i n z e ro a d b l o c k there is s u b s t a n c e in the o t h e r a r g u m e n t regarding the s u f f i c i e n c y of his defence. Before we go into it however, let us t u r n to w h a t the law says on the d o c t r i n e of r e c e n t possession. In M i c h a e l M h u t o v Republic (1975) L R T 18 an e x p o s i t i o n of this d o c t r i n e in Shedi Sheweji v R__(HC of T a n z a n i a C r . A p p e a l No. 69 of 1 9 7 4 \ 0 was quoted w i t h approval. i -r*. 12 " A l t h o u g h this d o c t r i n e of r e c e n t p o s s e s s i o n has b e e n v a r i o u s l y e x p o u n d e d , there is no m y s t i c a b o u t it. S i m p l y s t a t e d a ll the d o c t r i n e is, that f i n d i n g of p r o p e r t y r e c e n t l y s t o l e n in the p o s s e s s i o n of a p e r s o n r a i s e s a p r e s u m p t i o n of fact, not of law, t hat the p o s s e s s o r e i t h e r s t o l e it h i m s e l f or r e c e i v e d it k n o w i n g it to h a v e b e e n s t o l e n or u n l a w f u l l y o b t a i n e d , d e p e n d i n g on the p a r t i c u l a r c i r m u s t a n c e s , an d t his p r e s u m p t i o n c an be r e b u t t e d by s u c h p e r s o n g i v i n g an e x p l a n a t i o n of i n n o c e n t p o s s e s s i o n , w h i c h m a y r e a s o n a b l y be true, and it is not n e c e s s a r y for h i m to s a t i s f y the c o u r t that his p o s s e s s i o n w a s i n n o c e n t " . As h a s b e e n i n s i s t e d u p o n time and a g a i n by C o u r t s r e g a r d i n g this d o c t r i n e of r e c e n t p o s s e s s i o n the a c c u s e d is r e q u i r e d to g i v e j u st w h a t c o u l d r e a s o n a b l y be true in the c i r c u m s t a n c e s in r e l a t i o n to h o w he c a m e in p o s s e s s i o n of the s t o l e n a r t i c l e . In the p r e s e n t c a s e the 1st A p p e l l a n t , Mziray, m a i n t a i n e d that he had b e e n g i v e n a lift f r o m K i b a h a to C h a l i n z e a f t e r b e i n g t o l d that h i s f r i e n d at K i b a h a w h o h a d p r o m i s e d h i m a s h a m b a to p u r c h a s e w a s at C h a l i n ze. A l t h o u g h this k ind of e x p l a n a t i o n is highly suspicious, e s p e c i a l l y w h e n one c o n s i d e r s the t ime ( m i d n i g h t ) w h e n he w as a r r e s t e d at the road block, the fact that the b u r d e n on h i m is just a s l i g h t one gives it feet to s t a n d upon. He n e e d not p r o v e its truth. T h i s is m o r e so w h e n P W 7 1s e v i d e n c e is c o n s i d e r e d as w e l l for he (1st A p p e l l a n t ) s e e m s to have g i v e n a s i m i l a r e x p l a n a t i o n (s h o r t l y a f t e r a r r e s t ) w h e n he w as i n t e r v i e w e d by the R e g i o n a l C r i m e s O f ficer, Pwani, a l t h o u g h the w i t n e s s (PW7) at a n o t h e r s t a g e says that he c h a n g e d and said that he h a d b e e n a s k e d by R a p h a e l to a c c o m p a n y h i m to M o s h i to assist m g e t t i n g a c u s t o m e r for the s t o l e n ve h i c l e . P W 7 1s e v i d e n c e o n t h e s e s t a t e m e n t s to the RCO s e e m to be h e a r s a y for he d o e s n ' t c l a r i f y as to w h e t h e r he was p r e s e n t a l s o w h e n t hey were b e i n g made. In the p r e m i s e s , h o w e v e r m u c h s u s p i c i o u s , I find that the 1st A p p e l l a n t (Mziray) gave, in law, a s u f f i c i e n t e x p l a n a t i o n as to h ow he came to be in the s t o l e n v e h i c l e and he n c e c a n ' t be found g u i l t y un d e r the d o c t r i n e of r e c e n t p o s s e s s i o n . T h e same w o u l d have been the c ase w i t h the 2nd A p p e l l a n t ( A b d a l l a h C. A t h u m a n ) and Raphael, t h o u g h again, v e r y - s u s p i c i o u s for no one w o u l d s e a r c h for a s i c k b r o t h e r in the d e a d of the n i g h t nor t r a n s a c t lawful b u s i n e s s at that hour. U n f o r t u n a t e l y for t h e m h o w e v e r the r e is clear i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of them b y PW1 as h a v i n g b e e n a m o n g the p e o p l e w h o h i r e d h i m and s u b s e q u e n t l y f o r c e f u l l y took a w a y the V ehicle. This clear i d e n t i f i c a t i o n t o g e t h e r w i t h the i r bei n g found in p o s s e s s i o n of the V e h i c l e t h e y had s t o l e n just a day or two later c a n ' t r e q u i r e any l o u d e r d e c l a r a t i o n of R a p h a e l and 2nd A p p e l l a n t ' s g u i l t b e y o n d doubt. T h o u g h h a v i n g c o n c l u d e d as a b o v e it b e c o m e s u n n e c e s s a r y , let me b r i e f l y c o m m e n t on the o t h e r joint c o m p l a i n t t hat there' was no e v i d e n c e that they w e r e c o n c e r n e d w i t h d e f a c i n g of the Reg n u m b e r s a n d t h o s e n u m b e r s a p p e a r i n g on w i n d o w g l a s s e s of the 13 C °r r 0 1 1 V H e r ® U s u f f i c e s to s a y t h a t this is i n c l u s i v e e s t a b l i s h e d 8?^!- p r i n c i p l e ,of r e c e n t p o s s e s s i o n . O n c e it is e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t an a c c u s e d is g u i l t y of a p a r t i c u l a r o f f e n c e u n d e r t h e d o c t r i n e of R e c e n t p o s s e s s i o n , a n d t he o f f e n c e i t s e l f i n v o l v e s p r o p e r t y he w i l l be t a k e n to h a v e effected^1 " ? c h a n g e s clearly shot and W h e " P « t i o u l a r l y the s a l / ciSnges subiect S L h e y . ,WSre, t e n d e d to d i s g u i s e o r m a k e the l e a r o h L g f or it identifiable by the owner or anyone t-h* ohhfr-t h e 2 n ^ A p p e l l a n t / the abo v e s t a t e d m a k e s d i s c u s s i o n of J e L s e S t o ^ r T h ^ / h 0 0 ^ 13111" a l l e 9 e d l y of b e i n g f r a m e d u p a £ he JlthoSah \ P ° ^ Ce 3 h s - 4 0 '0 0 °/= a s k e d for s u p e r f l o u s li ee aa rr nn ee ad bS tt aa tt ee AA ttttoorrnne ™y °wfh h oars|u“ s a i d ntthat 1 a thi«? ” ai« l l -ine* f o u r s w i t h the t h o u g h t h a t c h e d o n a p p e a l and as it w a s d i s c o u n t e d b y e v i d e n c e ' o n r e c o r d . H o w e v e r , for h i m (2nd A p p e l l a n t ) t h e ? e is y e t a n o t h e r said that ??nCer? i n9 th? natUre o t the offen ce committed. He t o uf a n y t h i n g t he o f f e n c e c o m m i t t e d is s i m p l e t h e f t anri not R o b b e r y w i t h v i o l e n c e . m p i e t n e t t and c °n c fu d i n 9 P a r a g r a p h , w h e n c o n v i c t i n g a p p e l l a n t s and ' -5a S 1 !Jg °n the d o c t r i n e of r e c e n t p o s s e ssion' the t r i a l c o u r t s a i d a n d for c l a r i t y I q u o t e : - trial , h L n h L i S S ^ °f U S ® °f a r m s ' 1 f i n d that t h e r e h as P i l t o l i f U^ 1 G i1 ? n ^ 6 V l d e n C e 3S t h e u se of t he s a i d J 1 * fm at a the r e w a s one. T h e s a m e w a s n ot f o u n d l a t e r o n m e n t i o n by a ny o t h e r w i t n e s s o t h e r t h a n PW1 of p n h H S 30 1 r e m a i n w i t h the e v i d e n c e o n the o f f e n c e ? h 8ry ? v i o l e n c e . That is f r o m the P W1 e v i d e n c e h a t t h e c u l p r i t s h ad t i e d (?) j u s t b e f o r e t h e y m a d e w a y w i t h the vehicle. For tho s e r e a s o n s I h e r e b y c o n v i c t all the t h r e e a c c u s e d for the S f f e n c e o ^ R o b b e r y w i t h v i o l e n c e is l e s s e r o f f e n c e t h a n the a r m e d R o b b e r y " . The 2nd appellant has argued that in t he absenra w i t h ” i o W r i n 7 t e a d C ofVlsCitm p0ine ° " , n C * °f S V 6 " R°b b e ^ to i n f r r ^ h a t ^ r d ? ^ 8 ? S t a t ?,"Ifntl.b Y t h e t r i a l C Q U r t I an. m a d e aa jJXioLOi. p i s t o l ob uu tt tt nbatt he h. w a s ?tiedP W1 w i tthat h a he w a s nt' t ft h r e a t e n e d •w i t h■ rnnsi S S r on the s t o r y ^ o n c ^ r f i n g a r o p ^ a n d be d i s c r e d i t e d I^ ^uu d T lo uon^cce ea e^ tnat t£jt Vat /t lr iaall”c7o uTr t' *is 6aVl,lwdaeynsc e the can : 14 : b e t t e r jud g e w h e n it c o m e s to the d e m e a n o u r of the w i t n e s s but as I h a v e a l r e a d y s h o w n and so are v a r i o u s a u t h o r i t i e s , a first a p p e a l c o u r t is e n t i t l e d to mak e its own e v a l u a t i o n of the e v i d e n c e a n d m a k e its f i n d i n g s and vi e w s and p a r t i c u l a r l y in a c a s e like t his w h e r e the trial court never b o t h e r e d to a n a l y s e the e v i d e n c e and w h e r e the v i c t i m s n a r r a t i v e is s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d and u n c o n t r a d i c t e d . He d e m o n s t r a t e d that the 1st a c c u s e d ( R a p hael) at the trial h e l d a pi s t o l to him as he was s e a t e d b e s i d e s h i m w h i l e the 2nd A p p e l l a n t tied a rope a r o u n d his neck and t h e n d e l i b e r a t e d w h e t h e r or not to kill him. It c o u l d not be e x p e c t e d that in t h o s e c i r c u m s t a n c e s this saga cou l d be w i t n e s s e d by s o m e o n e e l s e for p u r p o s e s of t e s t i f y i n g on the same as trial c o u r t s e e m s to say in the 2nd line of the above q u o t e d p a r a g r a p h . In the c i r c u m s t a n c e s , c o n t r a r y to the 2nd A p p e l l a n t s ' c o n t e n t i o n , the issue h e r e s h o u l d be w h e t h e r it was R o b b e r y w i t h v i o l e n c e or A r m e d R o b b e r y and not R o b b e r y or si m p l e theft. In the p r e s e n t c ase the A p p e l l a n t and his f r iends from the time t h e y a c t e d and p r e t e n d e d to hir e h i m (PW.l) till they r e a c h e d S h e k i l a n g o road they had not e x h i b i t e d their v i o l e n c e at all. In t h e i r m i n d t h e y w e r e sure that they w e r e lu r i n g PW1 to w h a t t h e y c o n s i d e r e d to be safer pla c e for their i n t e n d e d crime. As to w h a t h a p p e n e d at the scene (Shekil a n g o ) let PW1 g ive the story, " . . . T h e p a s s e n g e r on m y left o r d e r e d me to sto p at g u n point. I s t o p p e d .... T h e n s o m e o n e s i t t i n g b e h i n d me p u t a r ope a r o u n d my n e c k and tied me to the car seat. It w a s sis a l rope. The p a s s e n g e r on my left o r d e r e d rne to d r o p o u t u n d e r gun p o i n t .... I saw a b l a c k pistol. T h e y b a r g a i n e d to kill me but the p a s s e n g e r on my left a s k e d the o t h e r two not to kill me. T h e y did not shoot at me but t h e y d r o v e off the v e h i c l e after p u l l i n g a w a y the r ope f r o m my neck". I d o n ' t see h o w this set of facts c a n e s c a p e the d e f i n i t i o n of a g g r a v a t e d r o b b e r y that is armed r o b b e r y w h i c h is d e f i n e d u n d e r ss. 285 and 286 of the pen a l code as f o l l o w s : - ( s.285).... s t e a l i n g anything, and at or i m m e d i a t e l y b e f o r e or i m m e d i a t e l y after the time of s t e a l i n g it, uses or t h r e a t e n s to u se v i o l e n c e to any p e r s o n or p r o p e r t y in o r d e r to o b t a i n or r e t a i n the thing s t o l e n or to be p r e v e n t or o v e r - c o m e r e s i s t a n c e to its b e i n g s t o l e n or r e t a i n e d ..... " U n d e r s. 286 it b e c o m e s an a g g r a v a t e d r o b b e r y if a m o n g o t h e r s the " o f f e n d e r is arm e d w i t h any d a n g e r o u s or o f f e n s i v e w e a p o n or instrument, or is in c o m p a n y w i t h on e or m o r e oth e r p e r s o n or p e r s o n s ...... or use s v i o l e n c e to o t h e r p e r s o n s " . 15 A p p l y i n g the above d e f i n i t i o n on the d i s c l o s e d facts c l e a r l y d e m o n s t r a t e s the f a l l a c y of the 2nd A p p e l l a n t ' s a r g u m e n t t h a t it w a s s i m p l e theft, and w i t h r e s p e c t to the tri a l court, t h a t it was s i m p l y R o b b e r y w i t h violence. The o f f e n c e d i s c l o s e d is r o b b e r y but of an a g g r a v a t e d nature as c h a r g e d - a r m e d R o b b e r y and t his is the o f f e n c e w i t h w h i c h R a p h a e l and A p p e l l a n t s s h o u l d have b e e n c o n v i c t e d . H ad the trial Cou r t a n a l y s e d the e v i d e n c e and p r o p e r l y d i r e c t e d itself it should have come to this o b v i o u s finding. It is a p i t y that for one r e a s o n or a n o t h e r the R e p u b l i c \ R e s p o n d e n t d i d n ' t cross appeal on this matter. U n d e r s. 366 (1) CPA the court m a y ..... (a) in an a p p e a l from a c o n v i c t i o n - (i) ............ (not relevant) (ii) alter the finding, m a i n t a i n i n g the s e n t e n c e , or w i t h or w i t h o u t a l t e r i n g the finding, reduce or in c r ease the sentence; or (iii) w i t h or w i t h o u t such r e d u c t i o n or i n c r e a s e and w i t h or w i t h o u t a l t e r i n g the finding, alter the n a t u r e of the sentence. (b) ............................................... (c) ................................................ ( 2 ) .................................................................. (a) ............................................... (b) ................................................... (3) N o t h i n g in this s e c t i o n shall be c o n s t r u e d as p r e c l u d i n g the co u r t from inflicting a gre a t e r p u n i s h m e n t t h a n the p u n i s h m e n t w h i c h mi g h t have b e e n i n f l i c t e d by the court .......... w h i c h i m posed the s e n t e n c e " In the li g h t of this clear se c t i o n of the law and in v i e w of the e v i d e n c e as a l r e a d y a n a l y z e d b o t h f i nding and s e n t e n c e have to be altered. I sh o u l d hasten to add that e v e n if the f i n d i n g (that is c o n v i c t i o n o n R o bbery w i t h v i o l e n c e ) w a s to be m a i n t a i n e d i n v a r i a b l y the sentence s h o u l d have bee n v a r i e d b e c a u s e the s e v e n ye a r s imprisonment p a s s e d by the tr i a l Co u r t is i l l e g a l as the m i n i m u m sentence for R o b b e r y is 15 y e a r s vide Act 10 of 1989. : 16 In a r r i v i n g at the c o n c l u s i o n as e x e m p l i f i e d in the p r e c e d i n g p a r a g r a p h , c o n v i n c e d that it is the o n l y p r o p e r c o u r s e m the c i r c u m s t a n c e s , a p a r t f r o m the a b o v e q u o t e d s e c t i o n of the CPA, I h a v e b e e n f o r t i f i e d by g u i d a n c e of the C o u r t of A p p e a l p r o n o u n c e d in the case of M u s s a A l o b a g a s t M t a l e m w a v R (1990) T a n z a n i a C o u r t of A p p e a l Cr. A p p e a l No. 172 of 1990 ( u n r e p o r t e d ) a l m o s t o n a s i m i l a r s i t u a t i o n . A n d i n d e e d for t h e i r case, t h e i r l o r d s h i p s s i t u a t i o n w a s a bit c o m p l i c a t e d for t h e y d i d n ' t h a v e v6 f • an a11 r o u n d P r o v i s i o n of the l a w as S. 366 (1) C P A w h i c h is at m y d i s p o s a l ; the a p p e l l a n t h a d not c o m p l a i n e d of the n a t u r e of th e o f f e n c e w i t h w h i c h he w a s c o n v i c t e d as it w a s a l e s s e r o f f e n c e u n l i k e in this case w h e r e he m a d e it an i s s u e though like m thi s c a s e the R e p u b l i c \ R e s p o n d e n t h a d n ' t c r o s s appealed. In the a b o v e c i t e d ca s e like the p r e s e n t one, M u s s a A l b o g a s t A P P e l l a n t w a s f o u n d in p o s s e s s i o n of a s t o l e n v e h i c l e w h i c h he h a d s n a t c h e d at g u n p o i n t 2 days before. T h e t r i a l C o u r t c o n v i n c e d o f the o b v i o u s e v i d e n c e t e n d e r e d c o n v i c t e d on R o b b e r y but o n a p p e a l t h e H i g h C o u r t s u b s t i t u t e d the s a m e w i t h R e c e i v i n g & t °l e n P r o p e r t y C>VS 311 ^ of the P e n a l Code. The H i g h C o u r t r e d u c e d the s e n t e n c e f r o m 15 y e a r s to 8 years. M u s s a A l b o g a s t M u t a l e m w a t h i n k i n g that t h e r e w a s i n j u s t i c e o n his h e e l s a p p e a l e d to the C o u r t of A p p e a l . The C o u r t of A p p e a l f a c e d b y the g l a r i n g e v i d e n c e of R o b b e r y o n one si d e and the n a k e d e r r o r b y the H i g h *°r^nQ°n T^K^'v. 311 cr a d in the a b s e n c e of n °n e x i s t e n c e of a c r o s s appeal, b y the R e p u b l i c \ R e s p o n d e n t , a f t e r d i s c u s s i n g R u l e o of the C o u r t of A p p e a l R u l e s w h i c h a m o n g o t h e r s states, T h e C o u r t (Court of A p p e a l ) m a y in d e a l i n g w i t h a n y a p p e a l , so far as its j u r i s d i c t i o n perm i t s , r e v e r s e or v a r y the d e c i s i o n of the H i g h C o u r t . . . " , in r e l a t i o n to its e a r l i e r d e c i s i o n in G o d f r e y J a m e s I h u y a a n d 3 o t h e r s v R ( 1 9 8 0 ) T L R 197 w h i c h d e c i d e d th a t t h e c o u r t had to i n c r e a s e or d e c r e a s e the s e n t e n c e w h e n e i t h e r the p r i s o n e r or the R e p u b l i c a p p e a l s " w e n t on to hold, "S o h e r e we go f u r t h e r to say that w h e n a p a r t y a p p e a l s to this c o u r t then we are not just l i m i t e d e i t h e r to u p h o l d the appeal and g r a n t the r e l i e f s p r a y e d for or to d i s m i s s the a p p e a l and leave i n t a c t th e d e c i s i o n a p p e a l e d from. The p a r t y w h o a p p e a l s lays h i m s e l f bear a n d g i v e s the C ourt the p o w e r it w o u l d n o t h a v e ha d if he had not appealed. T h u s t h e r e is a t h i r d a l t e r n a t i v e . T h i s is w h e r e the C o u r t says: Yes, the l ower C o u r t has ind e e d e r r e d but not in t he w a y the a p p e l l a n t c o n t e n d s that i n j u s t i c e has b e e n d o n e to h i m but rather that the a p p e l l a n t o u g h t to have b e e n found g u i l t y of a mor e s e r i o u s o f f e n c e or that he d e s e r v e d a s t i f f e r s e n t e n c e 17 t h a n the on e that w a s a d m i n i s t e r e d to h i m 1 . T h u s if a p a r t y a p p e a l s a g a i n s t c o n v i c t i o n t h e n i n s t e a d of d i s m i s s i n g the a p p e a l or of a l l o w i n g it and a c q u i t t i n g him, this court c o u l d f ind h i m g u i l t y of of a m o r e s e r i o u s o f f e n c e of w h i c h he w a s c h a r g e d . b ut a c q u i t t e d by the lower c o u r t an d c o n s e q u e n t l y e n h a n c e the s entence. Likewise, if the a p p e a l is . a g a i n s t s e n t e n c e only, then in a p p r o p r i a t e case, t h i s c o u r t c o u l d e n h a n c e it i n s t e a d of r e d u c i n g it as w a s p l e a d e d by the a p p e l l a n t or l e a v i n g it i n t a c t " T h e c o u r t t h e n d e c l a r e d (citing an East A f r i c a n C o u r t of A p p e a l case, M e r a l i a n d o t h e r s VR R e p o r t e d in (1971) in H C D N o . 145, a n d i n s i s t i n g o n its p o w e r s u n d e r s . 4 (2) of the C o u r t of A p p e a l Act, 1969) "••• o n c e w e ..... have c ome to the o p i n i o n t h a t the —— —c o u r t h a s e r r e d we t hen can s t e p into the s h o e s —Q--—til®—lo y s r _c o u r t and m a k e the n e c e s s a r y c o r r e c t i o n s . . . . " ( e m p h a s i s mine). T h e H i g h c o u r t f i n d i n g of c o n v i c t i o n on R e c e i v i n g s t o l e n p r o p e r t y w a s q u a s h e d and s u b s t i t u t e d w i t h o n e of R o b b e r y a n d so w a s the s e n t e n c e of 8 yrs w h i c h w a s e n h a n c e d to the m i n i m u m s e n t e n c e of 30 yrs as p e r A c t 10 of 1989. A s I a l r e a d y said, t h o u g h facts of the M t a l e m w a c a s e are a l m o s t the s a m e as t h o s e in the p r e s e n t case, the c o u r t w h i c h m a d e the d e c i s i o n is d i f f e r e n t (Highest co u r t of the land) and was dealing with powers provided under a different Act B U T s u r e l y p o w e r s p r o v i d e d to the p r e s e n t c o u r t u n d e r s . 3 66(1) C P A a r e w i d e r a n d m o r e s p e c i f i c hence a d o p t i o n of the T a n z a n i a c o u r t of A p p e a l r e a s o n i n g as e x p r e s s e d above, e v e n if for g u i d a n c e , is l e g a l l y b e f i t t i n g . In c o n c l u s i o n t h e r e f o r e the A p p e a l by 1st A p p e l l a n t , C h a r l e s S i m o n M z i r a y is h e r e b y allowed. C o n v i c t i o n is q u ashed, s e n t e n c e set a s i d e a nd s h o u l d be set at l i b e r t y f o r t h w i t h u n l e s s o t h e r w i s e h e l d - A s for the A p p e a l in r e s p e c t of 2nd A p p e l l a n t , A D d a l l a h C. A t h u m a n it is h e r e b y d i s m i s s e d w i t h a v a r i a t i o n that a r m e d R o b b e r y is s u b s t i t u t e d for R o b b e r y w i t h v i o l e n c e w i t h w h i c h he w a s c o n v i c t e d a n d t he s e n t e n c e of se v e n y e a r s is set a s i d e and s u b s t i t u t e d t h e r e f o r is a s e n t e n c e of 30 years i m p r i s o n m e n t w h i c h is the b e a r m i n i m u m u n d e r Act 10 of 1989. T h a t said, m y m i n d has b e e n g r e a t l y e x e r c i s e d by w h a t I s h o u l d d o w i t h R a p h a e l , who w a s the 1st a c c u s e d at the t r i a l and w h o d i d not ap p e a l . In such cases the c o u r t s u s u a l l y t r e a t the m a t t e r as h a v i n g c o m e u p before it on r e v i s i o n h e n c e a p p l i c a t i o n of t e v i s i o n a l p o w e r s (B a c h u b a A m e r i k a and o t h e r s v R (1979) LRT NO. 3). A n d in c a s e s of e n h a n c e m e n t of s e n t e n c e s the p r a c t i c e is to c a l l upon the a c c u s e d \ c o n v i c t by notice to s h o w cau s e w h y the s e n t e n c e s h o u l d n ot be e n h a n c e d but this is o n l y a p p l i c a b l e in situations where the court will have discretion to pass 18 appropriate sentence ^ c a s e s w h e r e m i n i m u m s ® nteI\®®s -Q urt c l e a r l y d e m o n s t r a t e d t h i s in r o o m for d i s c r e t i o n . The H i g m q 77^ LRT No 22 w h e r e a m o n g the c a s e of R v . A b r a h a m H a s s a n (1977) LRT No. i t , o t h e r s , it held, " th“ g e n e r a l p r o c e d u r e in the e n h a n c e m e n t °f s e n t e n c e s is that the a c c u s e d m u s t b e W^urt an e n h a n c e m e n t n o t i c e to e n a b l e h i m a P P e^ m to d e f e n d h i m s e l f " . The C o u r t t h e n w e n t on, " . . . . w h e n d e a l i n g w i t h n o t i c e s of e n h a n c e m e n t to a n accused person one must differentiate thre c a t e g o r i e s of c o n v i c t i o n , first Y' secondly f a l l i n g o u t of th e M i n i m u m s e n t e n c e s Act, s e c o n d l y , t h o s e w i t h i n t h e Ac t but still the c o u r t s are e m p o w e r e d to e x e r c i s e som e d i s c r e t i o n to a war s e n t e n c e s less t h a n the m i n i m u m if ^ e F ? “ e s p e c i a l r e a s o n s a n d c i r c u m s t a n c e s , a n d l a s t lf ® f^aislature t-hose c o n v i c t i o n s o n o f f e n c e s for w h i c h the l e g i s l a h a s g i v e n no d i s c r e t i o n to a w a r d a s e n t e n c e less t h a n the m i n i m u m . . . . . f o r the l a s t c a t e g o r y of o f f e n c e s . . . . . it is f u t i l e and i n d e e d u n n e c e s s a r y e x e r c i s e to i n s i s t t h a t the a c c u s e d be h e a r d b e f o r e his s e n t e n c e is c o r r e c t e d f r o m the i l l egal s e n t e n c e of the l o w e r c o u r t to the m i n i m u m m a n d a t o r y s e n t e n c e . In the p r e s e n t c a s e u s i n g r e v i s i o n a l p o w e r s , I ssaf-.saas ts i 11 p a a l -obviously, I would have corrected it to is Years ‘ SSn c t 'T n J e n f t " ' sai a m i n i m u m p r e s c r i b e d . Now, in v i e w of this v a r ^ t i o n ^ c o n v i c , t o a r m e d R o b b e r y , the o n l y p r o p e r s e n t e n c e as pe r A c t 10 of 1 ^ i s 30 y e a r s i m p r i s o n m e n t w h i c h is h e r e b y s u b s t i t trial i l l e g a l s e v e n y e a r t e r m of i m p r i s o n m e n t p a s s e d b y the t r i a l C uur t . Sentence to s ta rt r u n n i n g from the date of c o n v i c t i o n . : 19 : A T D A R ES S A L A A M ,r n , L • o. Kalegeya) PRINCIPAL RESIDENT MAGISTRATE WITH E XTRWHED J URTSDICTTnw 5TH MAY, 1 9 96 . D e l i v e r e d on th*» Q&- „ A t t o r n e y , for Appellant. t h e ' W e p u V n cc\^Keess pp oo nnddeennt ^ 6" ^ °f ^ ^ ■State and presence\afee**«e of A T D A R ES S A L A A M (L. B. KalecJ^ya) R E S I °ENT M A G I S T R A T E W ITH E X T E N D E D J U R T S D I C T T D N i ti n . h i s :s d ( r u e a r u i C o ' ect '. o p v O M 4 *f,*| K) t J c i / J u d ^ o i n r / ^ j l u i ^ .