twaha eliasi mwandungu vs republic 1999 tzca 35 10 june 1999

IN TE3 COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT MBEYA (CORAM: RAI^SI^r^, J .A .. 3AMATTA, J .A .. And LUGAKINGIRA, J . A . ) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 80 OF 1995 BET'TEEN T.7AI-IA ELIAS MWANDUNGU.......................... APPELLANT AND THE REPUBLIC...................... RESPONDENT (Appeal from the judgment o f the High Court o f Tanzania at Mbeya) (Mwaikasu ,..J . ) ■dated the 31st day o f August, 1993 in Crimin al S e s s io ns Case No. 50 of 1993 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT SAMATTA. J .A . ; The p r i n c i p a l i s s u e s r a is e d i n t h is appeal a r e ; (1) whether i t was proved beyond reasonable doubt that Yusufu Abdi Zakaria (the deceased) l o s t h is l i f e at the hands o f another person, and (2) i f the answer to the f i r s t issu e i s i n the a f f i r m a t iv e , whether the a p p e lla n t was the author o f the death. The appeal i s from a d e c i s i o n o f the High Court (Mwaikasu, J « ) c o n v ic t in g the a p p e lla n t o f the murder o f the deceased and sen ten cin g him to death. I t was not i n dispute at the t r i a l th at the deceased i s dead. Both the a p p e lla n t and the deceased were r e s id e n t s o f Hkombwe v i l l a g e i n the sub—d i s t r i c t o f M barali. I t was the evidence o f the d e c e a s e d 's mother, Nosensia tfilliarn (PW .l), th at on the evening o f July 11, 1992, the a p p e lla n t , whom she had known f o r many years, v i s i t e d her home at Mkombwe and asked the deceased to accompany him to go and have a drink. The deceased d e c lin e d .../2 the i n v i t a t i o n , g iv in g the excuse that he had no money, but f o l lo w in g the a p p e l l a n t 's i n s i s t e n c e , he agreed. At h is re q u e st, h is mother gave him Shs. 100/= . The two young men then l e f t . That was the l a s t time PW.l saw the deceased a l i v e . When u n t i l the f o l l o w i n g morning he had not retu rn ed, the w itness re p o rte d the matter to the l o c a l a u t h o r i t i e s . .At about 3.00 p.m. th at day in fo r m a tio n reached her that there was a dead body ly in g at a p la ce c a l l e d Majiweni i n the v i l l a g e . When she reached there she found a naked dead body which she re c o g n is e d as that o f her son, the deceased. The body was l y i n g i n a farm i r r i g a t i o n can al, f a i r l y c lo s e to the a p p e l la n t ’ s r e s id e n c e . There were s e v e r a l i n j u r i e s on it, and the abdomen, she observed, was d iste n d e d . The body was conveyed to her home where on the same day one Dr. Mahungururo performed a postmortem on i t . PW.l t o l d the t r i a l c o u r t that about a month b e fo r e h is death the deceased had been given by one Jason Ghapile (PW.6 ), as h is remuneration f o r the work o f h a rv e stin g paddy i n the l a t t e r ’ s farm, a s h ir t with b la ck and white s p o ts , a p a ir o f long tr o u s e r s i n w h itis h and purple c o lo u r s and a p a i r o f bla ck rubber shoes. F ollow ing the req u est made by PW.l, on July 13, 1992, the house o f one Andreas Mbagaye (PW.3), i n which the ap p ella n t used to rent a room, was p la ce d under guard by Sungusungu. A day l a t e r , the a p p e l la n t ’ s padlocked room was opened by the a p p e lla n t h im s e lf and searched, i n the presence o f PW.l and some o f the l o c a l le a d e r s , by P.O. Joseph (PW.8). A s h ir t w ith black and white s p o ts , a w h itish and purple p a ir o f long tro u se rs and a p a ir o f bla ck rubber shoes, among oth er a r t i c l e s , were found i n the room. The c lo t h e s , a c c o rd in g to PW. 8^ were *w ettish:f. PW.l i d e n t i f i e d the three a r t i c l e s as the v ery a r t i c l e s which PW. 6 had given the deceased about a ) month b e fo r e and which the deceased had worn on July 11, 1992. She claimed to have i d e n t i f i e d the s h i r t by a bla ck thread which had been sewn on i t s l a p e l , and the p a ir o f long tr o u s e rs by a s im ila r mark in s i d e , p a r t o f the w a ist. The w itness a sse rte d th at the black thread marks on the c lo t h e s had been put i n her presence by one o f her daughters, S ik itu , at the d e c e a s e d 's r e q u e s t. PW.6 c o rr o b o r a te d PW .l’ s evidence rega rd in g h is g iv in g three items o f p ro p e r ty to the deceased. T e s t if y i n g s p e c i f i c a l l y on the s h i r t , he s a id ; f'I cut a c lo t h and t a i l o r e d i t f o r himt:. The w itn ess, s u r p r is in g ly , was not r e c a l l e d to i d e n t i f y the three a r t i c l e s , which were tendered b e fo re the court a f t e r he had t e s t i f i e d . In the house o f PW.3 used to l i v e another tenant, one Ju liu s Alima s i (PW.4). He had h is own room. T e s t if y i n g on the even ts which he sa id took p la ce at the prem ises on the night o f July 11,1992, the w itness s a i d 3 ” . . . while I was in s id e i n my room, the accused came and knocked (5 & J my d oor. I was then a s le e p , but I cannot t e l l the time on ly that by then i t was time f o r Sungusungu guard duty which norm ally s ta rte d at about 10.00 p.m. ./hen the accused knocked /at__7 the door I opened i t f o r him. He then asked me a p l a s t i c b a sin which we use f o r washing c lo t h e s . I saw him c a r ry in g c lo t h e s . When I asked him what was </the/ p l a s t i c b a sin f o r he t o l d me that he wanted to wash c lo t h e s as he was to t r a v e l w ith them but he d id not t e l l me where. He t o l d me th at he had obtain ed such c lo t h e s from h is e ld e r b ro th e r but he did not mention the name o f his e l d e r b r o th e r . When I was g iv in g him / t h e / p l a s t i c b a sin I had l i t my t o r c h downwards. I was able to see p r o p e r ly the s h ir t and a p a ir o f bla ck chines rubber shoes. The s h ir t was a d r a f t ty p e . I gave the accused the p l a s t i c b a s in . I noted such c lo t h e s to have been stained w ith b lo o d . I t h e r e fo r e r e p o r te d the matter to the ten c e l l le a d e r the f o llo w in g day, f o l lo w in g the accu se d ’ s a c c u s a tio n b e fo r e the ten c e l l le a d er that I had s t o l e n h is three bedsheets and cash T3hs. 1 2 ,0 0 0 /= :s. Giving h is testim ony, Gpl. Mathias (PW.7) sa id , in te r a l i a ; ::The accused claimed that such c lo t h e s found with him and claimed to have belonged to the deceased were h is , a l l e g i n g that he had bought /th e m / from d i f f e r e n t persons but he could not show such persons or s h o p s .” Dr. Iiuhungururo gave evidence at the t r i a l . As that evidence i s , i n our o p in ion , p a r t i c u l a r l y c r u c i a l to the determ ination o f the f i r s t is s u e i n t h i s appeal, we propose even at the r i s k o f making t h i s judgment unduly lon g, to quote the o p e ra tiv e part o f i t i n e x te n s o . This i s what the w itness said i n e x a m in a t io n - i n - c h i e f ; ;t. . . I c a r r ie d out / t h o / postmortem exam ination at the home o f the d eceased. I found the body o f the deceased w ith b r u is e s on the back o f h is body and on the back o f h is neck. There was a ls o a stab wound on the r ig h t side o f the ch e st, on m i d -a x illa lin e which penetrated.;and p ie r c e d the middle lobe o f the d ecea sed ’ s lungs^ there was another stab wound on the r i g h t sid e o f the d e c e a s e d 's neck which cut the th r o a t. The primary cause o f death was pneumothorax ( i . e . accumulation o f a i r i n the lungs) and a ls o haemothorax which means accum ulation o f blood i n the lu n gs; and asphyxia, meaning want o f a i r . The body o f the deceased had been thrown in t o water. The accum ulation o f a i r in t o the d e c e a s e d 's lungs was due to i n ju r y to the lungs. Though the deceased was thrown i n t o the water and I have a ls o r e p o r te d i n my postmortem examination ( s i c ) as " d r o w n i n g t h a t however did not co n trib u te to the death o f the deceased as he did not swallow any w ater, and th e r e fo r e i t means that he was thrown there while a lrea d y dead. I th e r e fo r e used the term "drowning" simply because the body o f the deceased was found i n t o the water. Had the deceased died while i n the water, he would have swallowed the water and the lungs would have been extended and c o n ta in some water, which c o n d it io n I d id not f i n d . I pray to tender ffihe/ postmortem exam ination r e p o r t as an e x h i b i t . " Cross-examined by the a p p e l l a n t 's cou n sel, Hr. I.lkumbe, who has a ls o rep resen ted the ap p e lla n t i n the appeal, the d o c t o r s a id : and P.f, 4 ? a c c o rd in g to tJio a p p e lla n t, had l i e d a g a in st him i n the w itn e ss-b o x — P # . l because, i n h is c a p a c it y as a m ilitiam an, one day i n the p ast he had a r r e s t e d her i n con n ectio n w ith l o c a l l i q u o r , and PW.4 because he (the a p p e lla n t) had accused him to a le a d e r o f ten c e l l s o f s t e a l in g h is Shs, 1 2 ,0 0 0 /= . T e s t i f y i n g on the e x h ib it e d s h i r t and p a i r o f long t r o u s e r s , the a p p e lla n t sa id he was the owner t h e r e o f. He went on to say; "The c lo t h e s . . . were not sent to our ( s i c ) room on l l / l 2 t h July, 1992. They had been in s id e / t h e / room. I had / t h e / c lo t h e s in s id e / t h e / room from 6/ 7/ 9 2 . I bought them from one Gtervas who i s a Kinga by t r ib e who owns a shop at Ru jewa. I t i s not true that I did not t e l l PT7.7 as from whom I had bought / t h e / c l o t h e s " . Gervas, a c c o r d in g to the a p p e lla n t, had sin ce passes away. As rega rd s the p a ir o f b la ck rubber shoes, he sa id he bought i t on July 2, 19D2. He denied that when the c lo t h e s were s e iz e d by PW.8 they were wet or w e ttis h . As i n d i e .ted at the begin ning o f t h i s judgment, the p r i n c i p a l i s s u e s i n t h i s appeal, the d e ce a s e d ’ s death bein g not i n d isp u te , are, f i r s t , whether i t was proved beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased l o s t h is l i f e at the hands o f another person , and, secon d ly , whether, i f the answer to the f i r s t issu e i s i n the a f f i r m a t iv e , the a p p e lla n t was that other person. There can be no dispute th at i f the deceased was k i l l e d , whoever d id that e v i l act had malice a fore th o u g h t. At t h i s sta g e , th e r e fo r e , we ask o u r s e lv e s whether the learned t r i a l judge was r ig h t to fin d , as he did , that the deceased was k i l l e d . On b e h a lf o f the a p p e lla n t, Mr. Mkxunbe, learned advocate, stren u o u sly urged us to hold, c o n tra ry to what the learned t r i a l judge h eld , that there was no s u f f i c i e n t evidence to prove that the deceased was k i l l e d . He contended that the fo l lo w in g f a c t o r s e x i s t e d i n t h i s case and they had the e f f e c t o f weakening the p r o s e c u tio n case, as f a r as the a l l e g e d k i l l i n g was concerned: ( 1 ) Dr. Mahungururo wrote down i n r e p o r t that the cause o f the d e c e a s e d 's death was drowning; (2) the testim ony o f PW.l to the e f f e c t that the d e c e a s e d 's abdomen was d isten d ed su ggests th at the deceased had drowned and not k i l l e d j ( 3 ) the f a c t that the d e c e a s e d 's body was found naked i n the canal su ggests th at the deceased was taking a bath when he drowned; (4) Dr. Mahungururo’ s evidence regard ing the cause o f death was u n r e lia b le because he changed h is o p in io n on the c r u c i a l p o in t5 ( 5 ) the d o cto r did not open the ch est c a v it y , thus denying h im s e lf the op p o rtu n ity to d e te c t the c o n d it io n i n which the lungs were. While not a c c e p tin g th at the learned t r i a l judge e r re d i n e x clu d in g drowning as the cause o f death, Mr. Ebago, Senior State A ttorney, d e c lin e d to support the a p p e l l a n t 's c o n v ic t io n and conceded t o the r e s t o f Mr. Mkurnbe1 s arguments. There can be no r a t i o n a l c o n tr o v e r s y i n our o p in io n , over the f a c t th at i n p rep a rin g h is postmortem r e p o r t i n t h i s case Dr. Mahungururo d id not e x e r c is e th at degree o f care which i s ex p e cte d from a p r o f e s s i o n a l man, but we art, unable to uphold Er. Mkumbe's co n te n tio n that i t i s p o s s i b l e that the deceased was not k ille d . In our view, i n determining what happened t o the deceased on the f a t e f u l day i t i s n ecessa ry to have regard to the t o t a l i t y o f the eviden ce l a i d b e fo r e the t r i a l c o u r t. When that i s done, we think i t i s not p o s s i b l e to e n t e r t a i n reasonable doubt over the f a c t th at the deceased l o s t h is life at the hands o f another person . I t was common ground i n t h i s case th at the d e ce a se d ’ s body was found to have two severe stab wounds, one which p en etra ted up to the lungs, which were p e r fo r a t e d , and the oth er which p ie r c e d the tra ch ea . P l a i n l y , such i n j u r i e s could not have been a r e s u l t o f the deceased drowning* In our o p in io n , one need not be a m edical e x p e rt to c o n f i d e n t l y ex p ress that o p in io n . lake the learned t r i a l judge, we a c c e p t the d o c t o r 's e x p la n a tio n as to how he came to use the word "drowning1’ i n the postmortem r e p o r t and why drowning as a cause o f the d eceased ’ s death had to be ex clu d e d . With due r e s p e c t , we see no m erit i n Mr. Mkumbe ’ s c r i t i c i s m o f the lea rn ed t r i a l ju d g e’ s fin d in g that the deceased was k ille d . But b e fo re we part w ith t h i s a sp e ct o f the case, we wish to observe, i n the i n t e r e s t s o f j u s t i c e , that i t cannot be s tr e s s e d to o s t r o n g ly that i t i s o f earthshaking importance th at those who ca r ry out postmortems and prepare r e p o r t s th ereon do so with great g rea t care and s k i l l . Was i t proved beyond reasonable doubt at the t r i a l that the a p p e lla n t i s the author o f the d e ce a se d ’ s death? To that q u e s tio n we now tu rn our a t t e n t i o n . In a l u c i d submission Mr. Mkumbe s u b je c te d the evidence o f PW.l to two p r i n c i p a l c r i t i c i s m s and i n v i t e d us to h old th at the learned t r i a l judge strayed i n t o an e r r o r i n t r e a t i n g the evidence o f the w itness as r e l i a b l e . F irst, the learned advocate contended that the evidence o f the w itness to the e f f e c t th at on July 11, 1992, the ap p ella n t v i s i t e d her home was fr.lso because, as he put i t , the w itn e s s ' testim ony rega rd in g where her son and the a p p e lla n t r e p o r t e d ly went to have a drink fle w i n the face o f the evidence o f PW. 7, who t o l d the t r i a l cou rt th a t he qu estion ed one Tolo Mujovangwa, the owner o f the pombe shop where the two young men were sa id to have been seen, but Tolo denied t o have seen the men th e re. With r e s p e c t , we f in d o u r s e lv e s unpersuaded by the learned a d v o c a t e 's criticism . Even assuming th at the evidence o f the two w itn esses on the p o in t d id not c o n s t it u t e hearsay, i t must be c o r r e c t to say, as we do, that what PW. 1 sa id could not p o s s i b l y be said to be i n c o n f l i c t w ith PW.7 ' s e v id e n ce . This i s what PW.l t o l d the t r i a l court on the p o i n t ; "I was t o l d by the la te Kalinga a l i a s Ivlama S t e l l a that she had been tog e th e r w ith the deceased while ta k in g l i q u o r at the home o f the said Tolo Liujovangwa. They did not go to the pombe shop on that day because i t was a f e a s t f o r our Branch Chairman” (the emphasis i s s u p p l ie d ) . P la in ly , t h i s passage docs not lend any c o lo u r to Mr. Mkumbe's subm ission. Going by the passage, the in fo r m a tio n was that the two young men did not v i s i t T o l o 's pombe shop. We n e v e r th e le s s agr e w ith the learned advocate that there was no eviden ce b efo re the t r i a l c o u r t which could serve as a peg, so to speak, upon which to hang the fi n d i n g that on the f a t e f u l day the a p p ella n t and the deceased v i s i t e d a pombe shop. Secondly, the learned advoc .to submitted th at the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f the s h i r t , p a ir o f lon g t r o u s e r s and p a ir o f shoes by PW.l $s the p ro p e rty o f the d eceased having not been preceded by the w itness g iv in g d e s c r i p t io n s o f s p e c i a l fe a t u r e s on the a r t i c l e s , not much, weight could .../ll be atta ch ed to the e v id e n ce . In r e -e v a lu a t in g the eviden ce o f PW.l i t i s important, i n our op in ion , to have regard to the eviden ce o f PW.4, one o f the w itn esses whose demeanour h ig h ly impressed the learned t r i a l judge. We f i n d i t v ery s i g n i f i c a n t i n t h i s case that on the n ight o f July 11, 1992, the day the deceased was robbed o f h is n a tu ra l l i f e , PW.4 saw the a p p ella n t i n p o s s e s s i o n o f three a r t i c l e s i d e n t i c a l with those the deceased had i n p o s s e s s io n on the day and which PW.l i d e n t i f i e d as the d e c e a s e d 's p r o p e r ty . I t i s p e r f e c t l y true that the a p p e lla n t had lodged a complaint o f t h e f t again st the w itn ess (PW.4) to a le a d e r o f ten c e l l s b efore he re p o rte d the strange behaviour o f the ap p ellant on the f a t e f u l n ig h t . Mr. Mkumbe submitted th at the w itness was not a r e l i a b l e one. While we are prepared, bearing i n mind the misunderstanding between the w itness and the a p p e lla n t, to a ccept that the evidence o f the w itness had to be approached w ith some ca u tion , we are unable to accede to Mr. Mkumbe's c o n t e n t io n . The w itn e s s ' a s s e r t io n th at the ap p ella n t t o l d him that he wanted t o wash the s h ir t and p a ir o f long t r o u s e r s f in d s support i n the evidence o f PW.l who t o l d the t r i a l cou rt that the c lo t h e s were wet when s e iz e d by the p o l i c e , and a l s o i n the evidence o f PW.8, who t e s t i f i e d to the e f f e c t that the c l o t h e s "appeared w e t t is h ” . Like the learned t r i a l judge, we accept the evidence o f PW.4, i n c lu d in g h is a s s e r t io n th at the ap p ella n t t o l d him on the n igh t o f July 11, 1992, that he had been given the s h i r t and p a ir s o f long tr o u s e r s and shoes by h is (the a p p e l l a n t 's ) b r o t h e r . . . ./l2 The learn ed t r i a l judge was h ig h ly impressed by PW.l. This i s what he said about hers " ... t h i s w itness has <;k:i a lread y demonstrated as a t r u t h fu l and i n t e l l i g e n t w itness who has been very c o n s is te n t i n her testim on y ” . We fin d no warrant t o f a u l t that assessment. I t w i l l be r e c a l l e d th at i n the course o f h is testim ony the a p p ella n t a s s e rte d th at PW.l had giv en f a l s e evidence a g a in st him and that she had done so because he once a rre ste d her f o r a crime connected w ith l o c a l l i q u o r . I t i s not i n s i g n i f i c a n t , i n our o p in io n , that that reason 7/as not put to the w itness although she was cross-exam ined at a great le n g th . I t seems more probable than not th at the e x p la n a tio n i s an a fte r th o u g h t. Like the learn ed t r i a l judge, we f i n d no c r e d ib le e x p la n a tio n why the w itness should have been so wicked as to im p lic a te the a p p e lla n t i n the murder o f her son. Consequently, we can see no b a s is f o r f a u l t i n g great r e lia n c e p la ce d on the w itn e ss' testim ony by the learned t r i a l judge. I f P W .l's evidence i s accep ted , we must f i n d , as d id the learned t r i a l judge, th at the ap p ellant l i e d i n denying to have v i s i t e d the w it n e s s ' home and le a v in g w ith the d ecea sed . Of cou rse, we r e co g n is e that a c o n v i c t io n cannot be based on the accused p e r s o n ’ s l i e s , but i f m a te r ia l, such l i e s may be taken i n t o account i n determining whether the :.lle g ed g u i l t o f the accused has been proved. For the reasons we have endeavoured to g iv e , we are o f the s e t t l e d op in ion th at the evidence l a i d i n the s c a le ag a in st the a p p ella n t proved beyond reason able doubt that the deceased was murdered and that some hours a f t e r the crime had been committed the ap p ella n t was found i n p o s s e s s i o n o f the c lo t h e s and p a i r o f shoes the deceased had been wearing at the time o f the murder. In our o p in io n , t h i s i s a proper case i n which to invoke the presumption crea ted by s . 122 o f the Evidence Act, 1967 (the A c t), which re a d s; '’ 122. The court may i n f e r the e x is te n c e o f any f a c t which i t thinks l i k e l y to have happened, r e 3 rd being had to the common course o f n a tu ra l even ts, human conduct and p u b li c and p riv a te bu sin ess, i n t h e i r r e l a t i o n to the f a c t s o f the p a r t i cu lar case , :I The presumption under t h i s s e c t i o n embodies, i n t e r a l i a , the w e ll known d o ctrin e o f r e ce n t p o s s e s s io n which i s to the e f f e c t th at a man who i s i n p o s s e s s io n o f s t o le n goods soon a f t e r the t h e f t i s e i t h e r the t h i e f or has r e c e iv e d the goods knowing them to be s t o l e n , u n less he can account f o r h is p o s s e s s io n by at l e a s t givin g an e x p la n a tio n which may r ea son a b ly bo tr u e . The presumption can extend to any charge however p e n a l; See R v Bakari Abd j.lla h (1949) 16 E'jA.C.A. 8 4 . But i n case o f murder (o r manslaughter) r e c e i v i n g must be out o f q u estion b efo re c o n v i c t io n can be based on the presumption; See Andrea Obonyo and Others v R / l 9 6 2 7 E.A. 542. Under the s e c t i o n the cou rt i s e n t i t l e d i f i t appears reason ab le i n a l l the circum stances o f the case t o draw an in fe r e n c e that an accused person committed a murder or took p a rt i n i t s commission from the f a c t th at he i s found i n p o s s e s s io n o f p r o p e r ty t o have been i n p o s s e s s io n o f the murdered person at the time o f the murder and f a i l s to give an e x p la n a tion which can reason ab ly be a c c e p te d ; See ITgun.jiri s/ 0 Eugi (1939) 6 E.A.C.A. 90; Rex v Yego 4 E.A.C.A. 25; John A lbert Mgumba v The R e p u b lic , Criminal Appeal No. 153/87 (C .A .) (unrep or te d ) 0 The a p p e lla n t i n the in s t a n t case having f a i l e d t o account f o r h is p o s s e s s io n o f the p ro p e r ty which was i n p o s s e s s io n o f the deceased at the time he was murdered, end bea rin g i n mind s e v e r a l f a c t o r s , in c lu d in g the f a c t that the ap p ella n t was found i n p o s s e s s io n o f the p r o p e r ty a very sh ort p e r io d a f t e r the murder o f the deceased, and a l s o the f a c t t h a t , as f a r as the evidence on r e c o r d goes, the deceased was l a s t seen a l i v e i n the company o f the a p p e lla n t , we f e e l e n t i t l e d t o invoke the presumption under s. 122 o f the Act and h o ld , as did the learned t r i a l judge, that the ap p ella n t was the person who murdered the deceased. Jo e n t e r t a in no doubt that th at in fe r e n c e can l e g i t i m a t e l y be drawn from the proved f a c t s . Mr. Mkumbc has, i n our o p in io n , ably said every th in g which cou ld p r o p e r ly be s a id on b e h a lf o f the ap p ellant i n t h i s ca se, bu t, f o r the fo r e g o in g reasons, we can see no merit i n the appeal, which we a c c o r d in g ly d ism is s. DATED at J.1HDYA t h i s 10th day o f June, 1999 A. S. L. RAI.TADKANI V• JUSTICE OF APPEAL B.A. SAMATTA JUSTICE OF APPEAL IC. 3 . K . LUGAKINGIRA JUSTICE OF APPEAL I c e r t i f y that t h i s i s a true copy o f the o r i g i n a l . ( A ,G .,/;MWARIJA ) DEPUTY REGISTRAR