20071015 TZCA Arusha2

(Appeal from the Judgment the High Court . of · ~f Tanza~~a at Moshi) .. (Mchome, J.) 1 & 15 October, 2007 MROSo,· J.A.: This is a second appeal ·after the appellant was convicted bf tlie District· Court bf Romb~- for the· .off~nce of armed robbery, . - .~ ·contrary to sections 285 and 28(3 df -the Penal· Code, Cap 19 ·ot ~~e .... • .; • • ...... • . . . "' ..... • ·:+ • • - - . ' . - Revised . Laws- .. and .was . sentenced . . . to a. term of ·.30 years ... ... · His -first· appeal to the Higt{ Court at Moshi· was • •• ► · imprisonment. ,'t • . ::' ... . • •• • , . . . · · dismissed hence . his second . . appeal. . . ~-.- ... · .. . 1 ... ·:• . . . ._ '._ .... -·"-1 • '-I ·During the night of 2nd October, 1996 the ·residential· house of one August Ludovici< a·t Tqrakea in Rompo District was broken into by . . . . . . . . ... . . . . ;• ·. ·: ",.·:._ :_-·-~~~dits-._ ·upo-r ~nteri_r~g :tfie :19tJSE--~h~ b~nd!ts_ assaQit~d -N~tal_i~ vv/-0 ·-: •... : .... ,:.~· .. :·. ~•: :~.~·_:_. ~ .':· :.·.:· . · , ··.-·~··:; .·•.::·::· ·<·~: · ·.· ).' ~·-: ·::_~=-.. ~ .. ••: !. ..__.: •. \·/'.:_-• •. ~ ·<:·~-:: •."-:"·: ··~1-.:.,. :·.~·-:.-~-. ··:· ·. •· .. • · · :·. ~UQl_j'Sf (.P\JV1-) ··u·s1n9· iiG~ ~ters anEn<;,P.~fknlves: Ln~!::e, rneantif:11e. t~~;; •. ... :·. · ~:::-- . . .,. .. . . .. .... ~ .-t. ·. - ... . .. "!' • I . • • . • - ,ot ·stole an assortment of .things and ·1~ft. ·-After Natalia. (PW1). was· . . .. · . ' . '"'(.' satisfied that the bandits .had ·left, she. raised alarm ancf Aeighbo"urs. who included Christian · January, P.W2, responded and came to the Natalia s husband ·August Ludovick (PW3) who was at his 1 scene. • 1 kiosk . away . from his home during the_ robpery ·also ·responded to the alarm. · N~talia was taken to Tarakea Police Station for a PF3-and . · thereafter presumably to a hosi;,ital fQr treatment.· August Ludovick was able to know that an Avon Brcycl~ with a . blue· back seat, a National Panasonic Radio-Cassette, audio cassettes ·· . . . -and table knives were some of the things V'Lhic~ were.stolen from.his ..: hou·se.· ; . ., 9n· the following· morning Christici.n· ·January· (PW2) who was ·.:~ -~familiar with the stol~n·• bicycle ·.afld. ~-hE· Radio Cassette foltowect ... •• • • • • - -_. • . • "! ~ • • - ~ ·: biGv'¢1e ·ty.re niarks rro~ .t?~·· ~9fy1e -of Augt.i?t ·1-uaoyjck '(PW3) .. . . . •· . to a . ..~ . .. ;.•....... . . . . . .. • t . . .· . . . " . ,· ·-lialtAFJ . ~~~iiliili . . -. . . .. . . ' . . . . . . .. . _c_:me which had been st~len _from PW3. -He apprehended those .two_ • • I, ·,; \ • • • suspects and was. satisfied· that the --~icycle the appellant_· ~nd his . passenger were riding was the one which had been stolen from PW3: • . . Fortuitously, some Kenya policemen appeared and re-arrested the '(J . a_ppellant-and . the other ,. person with him. A. bag whjch the appellant and his. companion were ca.rrying ~s opened and it: was found· to . ' contain a Nationa~ Panasonic Radfo Cassette which PW2 identified ~s the one which was stolen from PW3. ca-ssettes and ·a knife were also . found- in the bag. The cassettes were inscribed ·with the· nan:,e . . A!:Jgust Ludqvick ·Tarimo;-which was the name of PW3. The Kenyan ~ - · - Police took the appellant and· his companjorr. tG the_ Tanzanian Poli~e ..• ~ .. • " • ... • .. ~ • ,.1 • ·-~ • 4 .. . • • • ... .. • ... . at Tarakea. , The things 1 • found • • witl1 the :" appellant were also handed .... ..... · _ . .- . . . ... . -over to ·ttie Tanzanian Police. - Later, PW3 ''-: Au-gust: Ludovick and hi_s . . . . . .~.. • • • -~ •· • • • • f ~-.. ~ - • • - - •· ~ . -.: wffe Natalia - PW1, were. called to TaTak,$ Police Station where tlie.y ~ -· . - .... . .- .. .. • ... ·. identified tli'e . . . ... . the. N~tional Avon Bicycle,. .- . ·Panasonic. .. Radio· Cass~tte, . -.' ~. . \aSsettes anci tlie k~ife :aS so~~ cit th~ th;;gswhich ·had been ~t~l~rl- .. -, ·fro~ hi..s .home the pre~ious '!ight. ~The ~P.pella.nt ai:,d his companion .. • • .. - ◄ •· ~ . - ' ·- ~·~- -.. . .........-·~...-...a.--il'at=:=====::::===!a:=:;=~'"'--:.E:-._;~t:::--:·"":-•-•-···-·: _•.• ·~· ...... ". . . 4 ' ' . . . .. . appellc~mt was· set free by the High Court .duri-ng the first appeal. In this appeal eight grounds were listed.· The appellant did not wi:sh to. argue them but made his submissions after· Mr. Boniface, .. . . . . learned Senior· Stc;Jte Attorney, had addressed the Court ·int r:esistirJg the appeaJ. Those.eight grounds of a·ppeql· can be· reduced to four substantive. grounds. These -are first; that a PreHminary · Hearing . . presumably under section. 192 of the Criminal l'rocedui:e Act, 1985. had_ not _been conducted by the trial ~ourt. Secoa:;d: that the trial· i .. ' ~ f ' court and. the' first appellate CGUrt err.~d· iri law in invoking .the' . . Doctrine. of . r?cent ppssession ' . to convict. the appel!ant. . . Third( .that.. , tr-ie .things ·which· vvere seized from the possession·. of the appellant·. ~ .... - · we~e not proved fa" belo9g· to the compla,nan~."- fourth, tb~(in ·any · . · _ oase·the . - ~ •offence -.. of~rmed . robbery . had ·npt;ibeen . . p-rov..ed-agarnst - -... . the . " . . appellant. . .• . ... beyo.rid . . ·.r-e·aso·nable . . doubt.. . ·a V\Je shall .discuss . . . ... . . seriatir.:i.the " . . •· . . . . ·._·grounds- of. appeal · as summarized abo~~e. Ar the -fie@rif:lg of. the appeal: th.e. appe!~ant ·_wa·s .unrepresented a·nd i:,rosecuted it: una_ided . .. . . . & ~ ., .·=,..~; . . ~~-:::~ ... ..... - ..... ~· ._ ··:--· ' 5 ... ~·, . ! .. . . ·• -· .. . _ Being a lay person the appellant ciid. .not· atterjlpt to. argue· ·: . ·the . \ •(.· .. \ ground of appeal· about the failure by the· ·trial court ._to. hold a . . preliminary hearing. Even in the memorandum of appeal he did not . . indicate what the consequence of the failu·re to conduct a preliminary 0 hearing would be. . . ·Mr. Boniface conceded that indeed the. trial court did not . . . condu~t a. preliminary hearing. and the first ap·pellate . cou·rt did not allude to that pefect in its brief judgment. Mr. Boniface submitted .... 4 ·.. .. • .. • __th_a_t._t_h!=_fa_ilur_~_b..;._.y...:.-t_h_e_t_ri_ai_c_o.u~ ~? conduct ·a prellminary hearin~_d_i~- (. not viti_ate the triaJ proceedings.· The main purpose of a prelim.inary . h~ar~ng in a~ crirn:i.nal trj~I wa~.to ~xpedite the trl~I: In the ca_se uncfer . . . . . . . ... - . . :"' . ,. . .. . . - ... - ~ ➔ . . . ~pJ:1ea1 _the trial court hear<:! all the ev1dence t!;tat was rel~vant and . ... . . . ... - - . . ..... . nec_essary before deciding the case. . The decision ·in the case was . .. . . . . . ·.. :. . ._.. .':' . ... . .. . . . . . . . . ~ . ~.. . . .. based . ~!)_--such . . . . eyiden_ce .. . . . .. . . tli~ ... ap.ge!la~t and the . law and·. . - ... . ~as· . . ..·not. ·• .. • .. • • 9::. • • • • • • -·. • : • ~ • • • -. • • ·thereby- prejuq~ced._ He.cited the case of MT·74f9 Sgt•. '.Benjamin· ._ . . •. .· . . . ~ - -·· ~- . . .. . .. . .. . . .I ...• . ..... - ...- . . . ...... . ..·-. . •·"... . . . . . . ... ..... -· -j. ~ • ' -~~...-~ ' ...... ~ ♦ . . I• .' . . \' • •• It is ·undisputed that the trial court d1d not conduct a . preliminary heariri"Q ·as required by s~~tion 192· of the Criminal . •· . . Procedure Act, 1985 and the first appellate court did not comment on • . .. 11 . .. that omission, ·probagly because the issue was not .discussed tbere. The question for coriside_ration ~s- whether the proceedings at tlie tri~I were thereby vitiated. . . Revised GeJ?eral!y'~ Edition of 200? appears und~r Part · (c) of . "Trials That part· has a heading - ''Ac_cele,;a.ted Trja/ and I ...__ __ ... . .,.,.._ - . . r Disposal of Cases'~- The obvious inference is that section 192 is -\ intended·to . .achieve-the . . . - s-peedin~ . up of crimjnal trials. . . WriE:ler . . - .that-· ... ·section; one of the· w~ys.. of speedjng up a .trial js ttiat.as soon· a~ ·a_ri.. . . .. . .. ace-used person. pleads not .guilty to a charge the trial CQl)rt should •. .. . '- ) .. . . . - ~.; . . . . . . - . . . . .. . . . - ~-~ ..... . .•· ho~d ~ ·a heprit:,g-·terme£!. - . . . . .he.aring~ "pl·e/fminary . . ...... cturing_. w.rn~h - . matters·· - . . -.!.I . whicli at~ ·,~~di:·PL!t~d Vi~~I -b~- i~ent~~~d so that evia~~-~~ to..~ro\le su~h .. :j . • • . - . •• r..· •◄ -+ • .... , I rri:;~: :~ill .not Llnne~essarUy be called. .That"- will... -~ meah. that·· ~--- -··•-·· - -....- ~;-~.. . ... .. , .. ;,, .• . . . . . ' .· ~ . ..-.. .• •..,.,.jty;.+N . ... -. .. -·. .. ......... . _ I ' . , ' , " ' •·. · witnesses wiJI not be sum.maned to prove that which is ·not disputed. ' • ¥.. • • ... • • • • , . That which is .accepted as uridis·puted ~s take_n• by tt,e tria! ~~urt. as .-, /. · ... -- -- • ,/" .··1 .•.• •. .-:= .. ... ··:.:... ·. ·, ·-:· .·. .- ...· -... ·.~ ·-·::: -~/··. :····· • ..-.-.• •_·.: • ,.:<:. 4:. •.-· .•-·. ·_· • )?{~V:~:~(-:~:r:0.~~tr.L?..-t.1~~7'<1.~ ;~·:P.-?Ce:ci0~e: Pt?"/id~q~ 1ii :t~-~<i~-ct(90·/oi-;_· ~=}_·:~~.. -.- ·_ , ' •·. ' it.• • • .. •• •• -:·~.. :..--~- •• ~ ... :+~ 1.:-.;... · J: • • • .:. . . . . . ~" • ••• • ·: • _.... _ • ~,.. • .. _ .,~- }--· •• ... ' •• • · .- . • .·,,- achfe_virig ___..,. . t.tiat :er-id. . If:a: sub$t.a:=itiai' . number· • of..facts are fpund •· ·.- . to :t5e . ! · ·. -~," · ;. I· • I --- un_gisputed much' fewer· . .witnesses . wm . be required. -- to give evidence. . . . . . In that 0ay the ~riai will take a shorter time, so~e --ot the w;t~esses . 1 : • I who would otherwise . have. been summoned will - be-spared the 1 . -- . . . -. - . -_ - - .r inconvenience and the bother to travel to co~rt on the hearing date .r a~d the~e ~<?_ul~ be less expenditure_ ·<;m. ~itnesses. · , ,- · Sometimes,. however! and this -happens not_ infrequently, the·· - accµsed person may d~spute all th~ material facts relating to the case· against him. ·.when that happens, then_ all witnesses to-prove those . .. material . facts. will .have to be... swmmoned . to.. appear at. the he?ring ~ . to - -give evidence. In such an eventuality neither trial time nor . - exp.~nditure will pe. spa::ed_. :rt, . 9 - t ·is the-. .cost . of ju·stice. This ·is 31so · .. . . . . _.. · the E:Ventuality ·wh.en. advantage •is nOt·t-aken ·to-utili_ze the procedu~e . . . . provided for- under section 1.92-of th~.erir11.inal Proceaure ·Act ·{the· ~ . ~. . . .. . . . '. . . . . . . . ~.: . . . . - :_ . ...... .. ~_ct)_and the rules made·_uhi-er it. i_n G.J'L Nq;··19z o~ 1988: · ~ . :• . . ... • .. .. • 'II ~ • .·. r... ,...,_.. _: • • • .~ e e e ,: ~ ; ;;;;;;;• ,....:::.':~ • . .. +- • • • • • ••• • • -• • • • •• -.. . - ~---~ : .:..c•. ·. . - ·- .fr_ .-· . ·:. ~.:;a!?·: ~o~ ii•.-·... . .· _.J. :"f • ......... ~ . . . . • •. . . . . . .thiit ;, (Date.rial fa~• 1<Y.~cti·.:· . 3Cc~pit~: ~:... :• __ · ·. _o.: :~ ~ •• -·· • • . • • ~· ... ~-·~ ••••.-• • • • . . .· · ~ . : . -• • :·~·-· ~ ··=•:··~-· :·.---~.··-· ~ •· . :· -~- . ~ . . :•·. .. ··: ·~··~··: : ···u(\dis·pwted:,tf~r-[r-tg_·a p·relirninaryJr~adng..fs t?~•;~=~!\-1:,y't~·~.:trta.Liourt-as . ~ . .- . .'. - · ◄ • •· •• :.. • ~... •. _....... ····"~.~•~i-. . . , ! • · . . . .. . - ... . J . . • • ♦ • • .• • . : ... ·.. • • .. • 'l! • • • • • . -~ - • • • • • • • - • • • ... · ~ .. t . • : \ _. pro~ed-. -~Ve,_a~s¢ ~i~ -~bove t~~!_:ection_~1.;~?t: !tie_·~ct·_is· use~l:JLOOIY... ·if--~---.. th~pr.oG:edure. provided in the section . . is followed - -~-·-_, - i( for- ·strictly. __ ·- .... ... .the trial court fails to draw· ~xa!Tlple, _ .. up·. a. memorandum . - of the . . .~ - matters agreed 9s ·~ndisputed, fails ~9 _rea.d ~ - - - ----;-•-.__....-,.. ~ ' • . them. over-·and explain r ~· •• - ·• .,. .- ,,I them to the accused .so that he understands them and he. ( aAd his . . . . . . - - - , - . .....- . . - · · - . • - -•-,4 • .:..,,, __- - r . • advocate if any) sign on the rnemoranduni at:,d thE: public. prosec~to·r _ . . ; . - - ~ ~• • ..,_, • • ♦- - .,. -• - •• ,,,_._.... _.. ••• ••••-t."" ~••• •-"',.. - ,,_..,.n-♦' _ ... ' ,.,......., •- ... -. p - .... , 4 _. •-.J• ~g_jg_n~&,_!~~~ -~rl.~: pr~H_fJlitJ.ary hearing is of no use_._ It is as. if it had not taken place and all ma~erial facts will have to. be prov_ed by .. • . ---- ----- _. -- - -- ,.,__ ------ -~--- .... - . . _ . . - - - - - --·-----:~------..--. -··-·--· . evidence. That is in substance what this Court decided in the case of ...-...--....... .... ~-:.---·........-.-..- -~· Mr. Boniface. .: . . - .. " . .w~ ·un'der.s'C~r~ ~he·\iliord~ ~!.§JJS_f.~(a pr~/i~!~e";y_iz~Pf'~IJ_~J. unde; ~;ctiofl_ 192 of the.Act) it.hadJJ...C?.tJ?,/{e.n_pia~"wrur;.b:_v~~-- ~-;r.;;J........ :· ...-.:.- - .. •• ... .. ~ •. • • used - abov~. This mean;· tnat the advan~age~ ---·-· . . _ ·--·· . -·- ··oi' ~ttibn. :_;19~. II --··7'♦--· • . . ._- . •. •...-;:--'· - - ~ - - - - - - ... - -··: .. ==~~,~~-·1. - ,.______...-- . . . . . .. . . : mean th~t the prosecutron 'v'tiil have to call and adduce eviden<:e. .to .. . ... . . . . ' I j .! ~-------. . .. . . . . . . . . . . ~ l ... ........:.a.··.w.te.....··"""'·i!!:o!''=·===:::i::::::=:=:=·~·~;.----==:_::'·:-:.~~7·~- •. ·." .. :a..:..,·_,.,_ ~•'--'<•--..... .... . . ~. . ..... •. !!!!!!!!I!!-•,' ,' ' 9 ' ;,j _. ~rov~ eve~ m_~t~:i~I fact-in t~e cas~. Thi~ i~\vh~t_ ha~_,be_e~.stated __iri . '/.. '·. . ~;.· .. .•_·.:; :.·.-. "..~- . . ·. :: . .. :, .···'... . ~;---: •._ .. ~ .. :····· . ·: ·:··. -·; . .· • -·~ ' / •-.¥ . .-_. ~ · ~ a...J1u.rbber .Qf.~ase~ ·i1:1di1dl~~{ ··tece:::-t · d~Cis~,;)DS -of:_ t~ilsr<::oort.· _. In•:ttie.:: .. ·~·- ·· ·· ~ .. : : · • •• •.. _. __;:. -:~-~!.• ~-. •: • . •._- ..~·~. ('•.:~ ·. ,· . • I• ~- • , ' • .....• .. · . • --:• •. ··{. \ •• :.· • ! •. \,? ·-::~~:· ;. ~- _' , t ~ , .. • •.• • . • .· • . .. .. : : . ·-1;:~se - ·of Jo~~p~· . Mhnene . . ·and Another . . ~ . ·v-~-The· RepubHo, - ,. . .. · Crfmirial ~ - . . - Appeal No. 109 of .2002, this Court said unambiguously ·ab_out the • i - • . • • '!- • • • faiiure to conduct a preliminary hearing under sectio~- . 192 of the Act- " we are satisfied that the proceedings - . . whi-ch were canducted without invoking the· . .procedure - . laid down· . section. "192 of tbe . under Act, were .. not vitiated." In Christophe,:.Ryoba v ~lie Republk, Crimfna/·Appeal-No. 26 of 2002 the _appeal to this Court was ''b~sedsolely_ on.n_on-compliance . •· - • 1 • •. . . '(vith section · J92 (JJ o( tire Criminal Proc_edure Act;. 1985. '~ The . . advoc~te for the apR:ellant in that appeal had cootenqed tt)at faih.;1re .. .. . - - . . - . . ~ (3) 0 ·. by the _trJal.::=~:Urf to t:<5nform ·to the requir~ments ir:"1 sub-SBct·i~n • of •.• ·' . ·, . . ~ section· 192 of the Act· the whole bf the . proceedings-during \ - rendered . . \! · senja~;ri·r1ole!~- c~~ held t!lat the n6n~~omPiia~~e. QnJy \iti~t1ai:( '. . p . · the , trial a _rn,illi~'. '-TJ!_e ·Cornt'. referrinQ·. t.o· ~ t!}g_"'.11" 7 4 ?;9 '~9!- r, ; . l 'l l I \1 ----.---.--•_ .....,. ,,.--·-,_,. .--~.• .. '"°C" -•, •---•~• • •• ••• ~ •·~ '. "_' •c . ·-•. . ' -t· '. ,~a-...--...;_..., -....._ __...;....., \ · · th~'.~inaF'{ he~rj ni.Rr:qt:;E:'f;cli8Q.SJ_ji.QL~~f koi:eediA~{:_w~ . .t . . ◄ ~ . .. .... .. . .. .. .. . . . ·--·-·..__.,_.. _..•_. ._._...____._.....______=·=·=·=·-=·-:...... -~-~-::: -• -· ... _... ·• ... ._ , j0o• ,- >'0.--. :-.:;, . . c~~eite;.'.:t~~Jh':),:ef5>f':t. yyit_ti 2,~Y. ~!s4q!_,.C~!}\f!31l!1ig~:-_th.9): J~!!:f;€.; . j l .- .. _. :,.: '. ., . ' . ,;· . . . . ... · . .. . . . . . . .. ., . .... - . .. . . ' :• ~ : ~-:-:_: ~<· ~ :\~: _-~t~~~-t~~~~t~~~~~jzj~~~-~te~Jrig-~½8~~;:~s-~~~-;i~tig~,'.~~of--~~~~.:_f!j:;}n-~1~ ·f,t :. \~ ~:~ ·.·,: _ • •· • • •• ; \ . . .,.. . • • ~-- • . ·.-•.,.:\. • . • •• . • . •• • - . . • . f. ·. . -.. - · \; .· P.rqt$dur~ M~19-s.5~~~~J@g~larlty b~t\t--d~~\;~t have the ~ffe~ · . .. r.-:- •...__ ,.._,..,.,,.,_... . ·,, •., -~--~ .. • ' > 0 ••• -.- .._,.,._,, ,-_k -~... ..... ... _ _ _ ...... -I,. (.· . \' . ~f rendering the ....,,,..- trial proceedings a_ nullity:· It may possibly however~ . t~~--~r-.__...-_. ··• .._,. • '•';. -'!:7W:., •. i;,Ff• not a!ways, have -the effect of -m~king the trial proceedings more protrC?cted and more costly than. it wo_uld otherwise be if there had - been · a .fruitful pi:eliminary hearing during. which substantial . . . . . - . ' ~ . undisputed· facts were. identified. and. accept~d. We now wish to discuss. the. second . substantive ground of appeal. . ~ . . The two COLI~ beiow found, and we· have rio reason to differ· .. fr0m .them, that. the appellant -was found ·barely a day after the robbery t'o be in-possession· of property which h_ad bee'} stolen frqm PV\q the previo4s 11ight. Among such things vyere cassettes -and a -• • • - • -- lf • • .. • .. • .. • .. !-' ... ...· ♦• • .• • . - knif-e ~which~naa the name or i_nitials of tlie· name. of.P\/\/3 written on .. them. The-ippertant did not give any rea-sooable e~plaAation hQW he - ~· . . . . ! .. · .. .. . .. -; .. · . . . ... '• .'!.. ~ .. • " : •. :! •. .· _came - . . things. The doctrine of recent by·tnose ... possessi-on is to the ' '' ·' . •· ... ·..•.... · . . . -·• . . . :- ..... _.-._. -·. . . .. >eff.ect that·.a _person who is found in posse~i9D of property which • - • • • • .. • • ..... _ .. • • • .. .... < •• • .. . . . . . . ·explan.atiqn . . . -~ on how . he . came by those things . . wa_s·the.thief . . thereof or . .,. . .. .- . .•. . . . . ¼iU!liiilfft§!i,W~ .... . . . . .. . ... .... 11 ,I, ·1/· : < •. • • • _- • • •• • ' • • • • .,. • • • • •• • •• : • • • •• -.'.' :f§ ·:!·. :... a ·gu,ilti:. :~E:~eiver·.- Tne;.efid~·~ce. ~,~s t~at- .t~~-- a~P?il.~_n! was.-f?~r.~,·-tn .·~ :· ~ • - :· ·. . ·:,- •• : • •• : • • • • • • • • : • ;; •• ~ -• • ! ·,.' •• :.· : • • • : • •• ~ :;i. . :.• . . . ~:-.. .•. -•. - : • ·.:. •. ·••••.•• ~-. : : •· •.:·· ·:• ....• • : ·: •.. ·~ . ;·.: ·.:---•· ·. .• . ~ . : . - . ·-~·:• • • - . : . _- . • ~ ~ -:·~. ;:~;: _-.. - _· p6?~i=?.si.~rf 9f tf:ie ~~ol~iJ ·proP-e.rtv :only. 1'}ours .after .th.ey·w~re.it"Qlan .. ·. :.. ~~_:· -~::;t .·' Jt -·· .- ' : • •• ·••• • •• .- - • - . . • .. - It was a·'faf~ inferehce,:thafthe·appe·1,ant·was one of ttie perso·ns \A/hO. ' . . committed:th.e robb~ry- i_n the ·hou~e ~f PW3. We dismiss that ground of appeal. We think the third ground of .appeal .as recast by this Court . . . . . need .not detain _us. The appellant cannot be heard to saY. that the I. things which . were seized. from him when he was arrested . were no.t •· .. proved to ·belong to the comp1ainant. In answering the second . . . grourid we found as did the two courts below that some of the things . . . ·found with the app-eUant and which the complainant said were stolen.-. . . . . fram his house had h1s name written on tbeni. We f!ISO dismiss that .-. "' ground of appeal. . . . ·• .. . . ... . . . . .... · Tbere is no disrJute that bandits sformed in_to-the house of-PW3 · .. . . . . . . . _ . .:- 'Nhilt;: he was away· fr?rv _ it.• HJ~ ~vifeiP\Ni) and child were ·in _the_. ~- • ♦- • • • • .. ·- ... hot1-se.· The wife was· assauitea· by. the.-barfdtts and property stolen. ~ .... · . · . .. . : . .. . . . . . . ...· . . . . .·: . .• . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . -. ~ater,. after. daybreak,_"P.W2 _:.Christ:iaf! j?Iiu~ry ar.!este.d ~he appellant . •. .·· ·011 the Kenya side of.the··bqrder .riding tfle stolen bicycle and had· a· . . .. . .· . ms.rem . .~l--. . . ..... . ... . . . . ·.·· ~l!RGill , .. .. .... '. •·. 10••· .. 12 ." therefor~, nai\Je for the appeHant t9 say there was_ no evidence t9_ link t:~\· ' . him with the robbery w~ic;:h had been committ,ed the night previously·. We are satisfied that th~ appeliant's· appeal has no merit. The (. convktion . . was · well founded and the sentence - . of 30 years imprisorim·ent was approp.riate. .The · appeal is dismissed in i1;s entirety. . . ··DATED at ARUS.HA this 15th day of October, 2007. J. A. MROSO _ JOSTICl:·OF APPEAL S. N. KAJI . . JUSTICE .of-APP!EAt: . E.M.k. RUTAKANGWA JUSTICE Of APP-EAL ~-·· • • Jllf_. • .. ·-~ . _ ... .... -· . L_ce"rtify that this is a true copy-of . . ~heorigina1·. . . ... . .. . . . ·. . . : ... ~ . ' . . . ~ . . -- . _ ~-: . - ·". . ,,·. y·JL.. ... . . . (. . . t~~~-i .. . ' (I. --~ USI) _ .. ., . DEPUTY REGISTRAR . -· ' ..' -·. ~ - __ _..,- -4 . I . . . --~:--~~ -~-.