mshamu saidi vs republic 2001 tzhc 31 11 november 2001

IN THE HIGH COURT.OF TANZANIA A'A PAR * FS S/.L4AM 4.. ^ ^ _ 4 . 4^ < ■ ♦ Q s n p i. r t ;,i-r E ,L i;0 . 50 o f , 2001 • M S H A M - ' S A I D I *-;•■ -„• . . ' ' APPELLANT Versus THE REPUBLIC «, . . RESPONDENT iiL P ^ G J lE jr T KIM/,1}® j ; years ” T **1 ' or"r i c t i ° r‘ for rape and sentence o f th ir ty l “ r t t e d o u t f o r th e o f f e n ° e - “ e aK» u “ t * » * * he 16 ' R e n t e d by Maleta and Nd^tana idvocates. the . f L ^ T n T ' l i a >ras bOEOd on the evidence o f the victim of :t e ' : : : r : : f r r “ ied - pwi in - « « • - - ~ a lle g e d to h- „ m court on 25/8/9g> ^ ^ Sed committed by the appellant on 11th J u ly 1998 Ihe & t «ho e ^ i n e d Asia to s a t i s f y hlasei f „ hether "ly ’ ^ <J“ tOT t e s t if i e d a , W 2. He is Dr. fted Paulo Mtefsta> 0 ^ * e™ " DOt’ Muhijnhili Hedical Centre and he i„ a ^ o c h o l o ^ t ! “* T V he o o u r t iB t h o t 0,111/7/98 she hE,d r * * ™ ' 3 * « ■ « * o1f ^W1. 0 PWI II tt li s on r e“c o°PPellCTt r d th a t th e v ic t i f f i Mchorae vho fc the a ia ter tn& o f f e n c e used t o setfvp- n - r ~ : r r i t his ^ — - - — - were not at hoBe. " " retm '”ed the " ' rket « “ ohUdren « : i 0r : v h: “ ™ w * « * • «■ * coU ld not to n is h M y i n J J L l n C l e ^ e ™ " * ^ “ * a fte r th eir a r r iv a l she parted with h i , „ Ife and „ent to ^ ^ p p e l l a n t was n o t s a t i s f i e d w ith th e answ er H +>, - ‘ ^^GD.toned tn M i l Pt«M a r* . 1 r e s i s t e d s iv in e - him { n w * - ^ ^ 11 3'he She s a id he had a t a i L T ^ ' ^ d“ *W 1 * EhB « « «* heerrssee lf lf one* an. » - f were livP^ hia Wife in g * separately * i,K lStSd in M*h3t ^hi, She =nd th r e a L T L " ;!^ : r h 1" ? a e ap?su=nt — ChSd W1 -« ■ • then raped her! I “ hiCh ^ »• c r ie d , she „oUl d b6 « u L . ^ ‘ ta " * « th a t he had changed h is mlBd an^ h =PPellant inforaerl W I u -i vaG no lo n g e r g o in ^ t o k i l l h ■»* v, she had seen h is body and the ^ U a n t had seen hern. L a te r she managed to escape and re p o rte d the m atter to her s i f t e r a t K ilw a Road, They in tu rn , re p o rte d th e in c id e n t to the w ife o f th e a p p e lla n t and e v e n tu a lly to the p o lic e s t a t io n where 1-W1 to s g ive n a PF3 fo r trea tm en t, She ended up b e in g tr e a te d a t th e M uhim bili M e d ica l C entre where she was adm itted fo r two d ays. The d o c to r wh».examined her , confirmee! th st'P W i was rap ed . The. w ife » f th e a p p e lla n t i s a P o lic e women wh* was working a t t t f a i i k i by th en ,-S h e t e s t i f i e d h avin g r e c e iv e d t}je in fo rm a tio n a b o u t'th e rape and a s s is te d -Asia tn have th e m atter re p o rte d to the pnline-,. L a te r she e s c o rte d I W to' h o s p it a l f o r tre a tm en t, A p p a ren tly the a p p e lla n t did not g iv e h is d e fe n c e . He req u ested f o r a w ith draw al r>£ th e t r i a l m a g is tra te on th e ground th a t he d id n ot have c o n fi­ dence th a t j u s t i c e p r e v a i l . H is re q u e s t was turned down. He refu s e d to t e s t i f y and th e t r i a l m a g is tra te wrftte a judgment on the ev id e n ce which was on r e c o r d * He -ended .up c o n v ic tin g the a p p e lla n t and sen ten cin g him to 30 y e a fs im prisonm ent. He-was a g g rie v e d and f i l e d th is a p p e a l,. There a re seven grounds o f a p p e a l. The t r i a l m a g is tra te i ? fa u lte d f o r h a vin g accepted and r e ly in g on the ev id e n ce o f PW2 who i s an u n r e lia b le , f o r c o n s id e r in g th e evid en ce o f PW3 in con tra ve n tio n the law and fo r r e l y i n r -on h er e v id e n c e -fo r . b e in g Tiiased because he refu sed to withdraw, from the c a s e ;. f o r denying the a p p e lla n t the r i g h t to defendr. h im s e lf, fo r c o n v ic tin g the a p p e lla n t on the u n corroborated evid en ce o f PW1 and fo r r e ly in g on c o n tra d ic to r^ p ro s e c u tio n e v id e n c e . The h e a rin g Of t h is ap p eal was conducted by w r itte n su bm ission s. The. Learned A d v o c a te •f o r th e a p p e lla n t and th e Learned S ta te A tto rn e y fo r the R ep u b lic a re . commended fo r t h e ir e f f o r t , in the. p re p a ra tio n o f the su bm ission s, B ie ad vocates f o r the. a p p e lla n ts in p a r t ic u la r must have spent a l o t o f tim e to fin d a way in which th e case fo r the a p p e lla n t could go through., ■ W h ile th e e f f o r t s made -are r e a l l y a p p re c ia te d , I do not fin d m e rit in any o f the grounds o f ap p eal r e l i e d upon f o r reasons to be e x p la in e d , FM2 i s a g ^ o c o l o g i s t . He i s « s p e c ia liz e d d o c t o r . The ad vocates f c r the a p p e lla n t a re c h a lle n g in g why he was summoned w h ile he was not l i s t e d as a w itn e s s t o be c a lle d a f t e r th e p r e lim in a r y h e a rin g . The arguments f o r the jflpr th e a p p e lla n t i s th a t S e e tio n 28^ (1 ) & (2 ) o f th e C rim in a l P ro ce­ dure /.ct .,1985 was contravened# The S e c tio n b ars c a l l i n g o f a witness- whose statem ent was not rea d a t the Committal P ro ceed in g s w ith o u t.a rea so n a b le n o tic e h a vin g been g iv e n by the pro*'e*u tioi| to th e accused and h is a d v o c a te . With g r e a t e s t r e s p e e t to th e Learned Advocate f o r the a p p e lla n t, frhe S e c tio n i s v e r y c l e a r , Jfc i s speakin g about t r i a l s in the High Court and n o t in the s u b ord in a te Couvt* S e c tio n 289 i s in Pari* V I I I o f the C rim in a l P roced u re A c t, P a r * V U f d e a ls w ith the procedure or t r i a l b e fo r e the High Court* * * n0t rea d t o th e ? O U rt’ * " 1 W ‘S * * < » • « t « t a a » i j t ‘ <> b e c a l l e d as a w it n e s s „ ^ ^ ^ “ f ^ o c e ^ W ca n n o t b e a llo w e d n o tic w has been g iv e n in w r it in g b~ +h - * " ' C oU rt- unl<#fc a re a s o n a b le a d v o c a te »■ - - ^ 1 '^ e u t io n to th e accused and h is In t h is aP r e a l , the s e c t io n ha- > m is d ir e c t io n on the .p a rt o f tlv , a r i v o c - T f ^ r ' ' ° Ut ^ ** ^ 3 re a l o f an e n t i r e l y d i f f e x ^ t s i t u „ t lo n ^ ^ B * s e c t io n i e t a lk in p ^ . ™ u i t y and „hct Ect the subordinate cou rts. “ T '* * r f ti0 ” ° f de° l M i " f’ - i s ro t a p p lica b le i „ evidence o f^ Regarding the eecon[i srorad ^ _ n o t « “ “ T e l l a b l e . - „ l t „ OSS a„ i „ „ t *h , ' T * * e f o r u n der S e c t i o n 1 » ( 1) o f th o J *** ^ * * * ln c l^ l y p r o v id e d n o t on r e c o r d w h e th e r « , „ as * , , ^ 7 “ * — * * » . * » . * « * > as i t is a c c u s e d d id n 4 t 0 c c a s s io n ^ *• • *. h“ e v id e n c e a g a i ^ t th e » t a s s i,t t h „ c o w t in d e te l ; : ™ ^ - - J -t.c e and h e r e v id e n c e d id ca reer, she t e s t i f i e d on r o c o i p t " ***> * * °< ™ «te < S . ,1s s h o t-, a s s is te d W t o r e p o r t th e na t t e r t o th e “ T * " * 1 = W W1 > • * « -re d . She at ^ " h = t She d i d - S M » e v id e n c e d id n o t " * *“ * * ° h® T i t = l . • - * * as .r o u n d t h r e e •„ “ ^ ^ P rB 3 U d lC e = ^ » * - th ° r t ' lo "° »• «! f o r r e p e t i t l o n T ” 00" 0011’ ^ ^ **“ TOT* ” d l n SromnS W In ground fo u r .--p +v, * iL u r 01 th e a p p e a l th- +- - -, r e fu s in g to w ith d r a w f r ™ th e c a s l when 2 1 U * * * * « l « w a fo r ,TOCa t o f c o f th e o p in io n th a t h is r e f u e l r< W * e d h ia to do s o . B * °f J u s t j c e b e c a m e th e t r i a l a - g i s t r a t e i T * * * * 1 0 *’'* ' ° • « * • » « U c 3 r r i3 e * e a rn e d a d v o c a t e , th is is a s e r io u s a ll- ~ ^ S re o te s t a s p e c t t o th;- — d t h a t a c c o r d in g t o th e ^ * „Z ° m a g is tr a te fro m th e r r c c e . d in . - s i- not „ ’ ° <* ' J o-'iw o r , r * * 0*5 ° r “ V o f the p a r tie s in ^ ° ° C* “ ^ »T the - t w i n arcount to ^ tha ^ » « c h a tren;- i , aU oved , m agistrate who would hear t b . J oa, ^ . ° r r ° r t “ 1^ o f o ^ o s in g a Judge o-, 0 7 “ ! ° a ? t d e t G M ia e d b y th s « o u r t % B 1 tt . . „ ^ “ •--^ a a te E a X ^ s E a s S a ^ e r^ i of I T * * ° • « * of . V1 'v r ttt A K o- o f 1999, th e C o u rt of~j| 7 4a£s^ - S & A t t 8 K a a U i ! ! S f f = l J U S U fy th “ O f a ju d g e o r ^ ’ 1. a e r e M k „._.. . fr r " tn e - o c e F r o c e ddir ee. i n^,qs . e r e must be e v id e n c e o f bad b i o 2 . Judge / r a r g t e t r o t o The juc's ° / m a g istra te nu^t h - v , " °° i ° th ° U t i S ^ t am 1 th e a d v e r s a r y p a r t y Qr on& Q f " ° ° >Se r e l ^ i o n s h i F w it h th e 3 . ju d g e / m a g is t r a t e o r a ^ m b e r o f h i . / * -n i n t e r e s t i n th© ou tcom e o / l i + ., . ^ C lC Se f ^ l l y h" s -•■ m i n i s t r a t i o n of '' '‘ l f S ' t l o n ' ^ c -r than th e 4 The a p p e lla n t d i-’ not n v a 'imr ~-r x. o<-ny o f thii above rea son s. In sted d ho \ns m erelv P e c io u s t h a t th e t r i a l n ^ i s t r a t e wao M b # . Ih o ^ x ' t r r . h ‘ t ^ ~ ^ h l H ; h i 1 Z Z ,A £ T th; ^ i^ a* ' * - ^ f0 , s « , ^ OTt o f jusTi^c^, vVii t ever the case roulr’ T- i B rc tm C fiv e o f th „ ' ’ . ' **! r , U * s a ttem rt- a « « o th ers It i "" T c 0 n c c r” et,' x t fc=s to ^ f f e r th e strae r e s u l t s as the Si i t is on reco rd th ~t the a ~ rr1 t - i -h • h t a s e l f . M » Ch as he h - h . ' 1 , “ S" * n “ t o defen d . , " ~ o tto m a n ;- th e c o u r t th rou gh ou t r.n-’ h .- h e - - re’ t i'e s u r r i y 'Ox sulT-iy o ' lhlCl1 *“ proceedings m vo him ^-r-rrv-h^-;f cur th e ^ r- . . r r o c e e d in ^ a . a - a in »t f , * ■ n ■ o f r ^ l a j b - s e le s s a l le r - r t io n s g a i n s t tne t r i a l n r^ istrn te -a- ^ * 51/30 a ■cxi-rsco fo r seeking -for n r'i~v~o L l r ; : ” * * . « ? — e '"■irectec’ h i , ^ trio iu .ij ^own r r r r t i , __ n . , , x , ' ’ e refuse:' to exercise h is r ir A t .^rr1 he ” ^ r - » - « • . » * - he ^ A tnnt ne was c>niec'1 -• def end l^ jp s e lf . He was r iv e n - o p p o r tu n e ty t o e x e r c is e h i . r i , h t hut h e r e f t e e d to e x e r c i s e h i , r i - h t . “ tin T °f thC ° r r e r l CC,rrobOT= tlO T o f th e e v i 'e n c e o f th e c i c - 3 c t i o n 'l V th G t " * C M r“ t l y !' 0lntW ! ° Ut ^ th9 L6OT6d * * * • '« « « , y 0If % “ ^ ETldOTCe A c t ^ » y S e c t io n 27 o f th „ ^ , 1 ^ ■ oos C ^ p e c ia l P r o v is io n s ) S u W « t l n a 7 , where the t r i a l m - r r is tm te i s h u t^ n T th ” C r e d i M l i t 7 ° f th ° r t c t t o th ^ «* » / h. i« t e l l i n g n oth in -- ut the truth, corroboration i.^ not renu-ir ri w , , , d - reqaar^cl. However, in the ccee in wh^c? : ■■ = a ip e a i has been p re fe rre d , there " w o « ™ i e ' ... vju.t.1.Acatsjjt corroboration . t¥? i R the fw t r - « « . » 2 c e n firra e t1 th =t h i , e , M i n , t i 0n r e v e o i e , th a t W 1 ^ e I T , „hlch « 2 h- c, t w W in colIrt ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ mra^ ” lWJ* Z r Z T ” **' m " 30 eh ~ ^ ^ th e b « : u, ; T ’ W 3UPt “ ’ ■ - ' - e t i o n . Ho ,n s th e r r o r o r je r s c n t o te n .e r- n DtCuUso xie w^is the ore who ui+ii +v^ th e r e s u l t s . — ru n -n o n o f t h „ r t o t i , , ond r e c o r - e d In t , i u i s a t rcim o f the a p p e a l, th e t r i e l n -.'T is trn te i- c h - lle n - e r l f o - : r : r’ r ^ c, u e , W1 “ COUli’ t e l 1 She s a x , sh e ^ s th r e .te n e . , th n ta x e ,a sh e ^ he i f t h e s h o a to d . ^ , ls „ ^ ^ hT . ” ° U l:' 1,04 OVO" h" TC l i s t e d h er bec=Us e o f th e b-c- r e l - t i o n - h i p w xch th e a p p e lla n t had w ith h is n e ig h b o u rs . In r c e O ia te ly , f t e r th e r . p e -h e ru sh ed and in fo rm e d h e r s i s t e r . T h ey went to s e e the w i f e o f the- o p p e l l ’ n t The rrutter wcis ro'Dcrtor1 tr» +,Vi^ ^ ~) * m % x * r a t io n th " • +. "° V1Ctiffl W?S t5ken to h^ r 'L t a l fo r esrami- c tio n ? Wh^ - • e™ " U ° n reV eS led th c t W v=s raped. Where i the contr-ndt- verv con v©ry ' sisten^t ^nd f eli lle*" tht^ Wiat *^TYr«aTi 1 Say 10 th?t the Pro’^ cut^ n evidence is -p p e ll„ n t was properly ccnvictarj* 5 The a p p e a l i s e n t i r e l y d is m is s e d , f ' '* A^v\a a ^ ! N .P .K in n ro T