apaikunda ephraim vs frank simon another 2008 tzhc 315 7 november 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA AT ARUSHA (PC) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 9 OF 2 0 0 7 APAIKUNDA EPHRAIM ................. APPELLANT - V ersus - 1. FRANK SIMON 2 . ELIMANYISYA EPHRAIM ................. RESPONDENTS (Appeal from th e d ecision of th e D istrict C ou rt o f Arusha) (F. A. KAHAMBA - RM)| D ated th e 7 th day of August, 2 0 0 6 In C rim inal Appeal No. 3 0 o f 2 0 0 5 2 0 th October. & 7 th November, 2008 JUDGMENT Mmilla, .1, T h i s is a s e c o n d a p p e a l by A p a i k u n d a d/o E p h r a i m w ho had initial ly lodged a c o m p l a i n t in t h e P r i m a r y C o u r t o f JYIaji y a C h ai in A r u m e r u D i s t r i c t t h a t t h e r e s p o n d e n t s n a m e l y , F r a n k s/o S i m o n a n d E l i m a n y i s a w/o E p h r a i m h a d stole a herd o f c a t t l e fro m her k r a a l . T h a t court a c q u i t t e d b o t h r e s p o n d e n t s for insulTiciency o f e v i d e n c e . T h e appellant un s u c c es sf u l l y a p p e a l e d to th e Dist rict Co urt o f A r u s h a / A r u m e r u , h e n c e the instant appeal. 'Flic pa r l ie s in this c a s e a r e closely re lated. T h e y a r e all r ela te d to t h e late E p h r a i m w ho w a s f a t h e r to the appe ll ant the', said A p a i k u n d a E p h r a i m , ste p brother to th e first respondent, and husband to the second re s p o n d e n t E l i m a n y i s a w/o E p h r a i m . the l a t t e r h a v i n g been th e y o u n g e r wife o f t h e said E p h r a i m while the a p p e l l a n t ' s m o t h e r (also d e c e a s e d ) w a s E p h r a i m ’s eld er wife. A t the t im e o f his d e a t h , the late E p h r a i m left behind p r o p e r t y which included he rd s of c a t t l e , s o m e of which were u n d e r tin*, c u s t o d y and c a r e of his y o u n g e r wile, t h e s ec ond r e s p o n d e n t. L a t e r on h o w e v e r , one of the la te E p h r a i m ’s b r o t h e r s c ol lec te d all the herds o f c a t t l e fro m t h e secon d re s p o n d e n t e x c e p t one w hi c h he asked her to keep. W h i l e t h e secon d r e s po n d e n t s a y s t h e herd o f c a t t l e was left behind b e c a u s e it w a s hers p e r s o n a l ly , t h e a p p e l l a n t s a y s it be lo ng ed to he r l a te f a t h e r . It was this herd o f c a t t l e w h i c h t h e r e s p o n d e n t s were on t h e night o f 8 . 1 . 2 0 0 5 seen d r i v in g it a w a y , h e n c e th e a l le ga ti on tha t t h e y stole it. T h e a p p e l l a n t ’s m e m o r a n d u m o f a p p e a l in this re ga r d h a s rais ed four g r o u n d s all o f w h ic h c o n v e r g e on the aspect, of s uf f ic ie nc y o f e v i d e n c e . As 1 h a v e a l r e a d y p o i n t e d o u t , the a pp el la nt is c h a l l e n g i n g t h e c o n c u r r e n t decisions o f t h e t w o c o u r t s below. Six* is s a y i n g t h a t the trial c ou r t did not properly w eig h the evidence it received as a r e s u lt o f w h i c h it wrongly acquitted t h e r e s p o n d e n t s , also t ha t th e first appellate court w r o n g l y u p h e ld t h e trial c o u r t ’s decision. I a m a w a r e t h a t in n o r m a l c i r c u m s t a n c e s , the c ou r t on secon d a p p e a l is not e x p e c t e d to d i s t u r b the c o n c u r r e n l findings o f f a c ts o f th e t w o c o u r t s below unless t h e r e is just if icat ion. I h a v e in mind t he c a s e s o f A m r a t a l D a m o d a r M a l t a s e r a nd A n o t h e r 1 7 A Z a n z i b a r Silk Ho le! v. A . II. J a r i w a l l a T/A Zanzibar Hotel (1980) T.L.K . 31 a nd The Director o f P ub lic P r o s e c u t i o n v. J a f f a r i M fa nine K a w a w a ( 1 9 8 1 ) T . L . I l . 1 4 9 . T h e c o m m o n pos ition e x p r e s s e d in th es e ca se s is tha t it is a rule o f p r a c t i c e t h a t the se c on d a p p e l l a t e c o u r t should not in terfere with c o n c u r r e n t findings of th e two c o u r t s below unless th er e a r e c o m p e l l i n g r ea s o n s j us tif yi n g such in te r f e r e n c e . In th e former ca se of Amratal Damodar M a l t a s e r and A n o t h e r ( s u p r a ) , t he C o u r t o f Appeal o f T a n z a n i a said t h a t : - “ ail a p p e l l a t e c o u r t in s u c h c i r c u m s t a n c e s sh ou l d n o t d i s tu r b c o n c u r r e n t findings o f f a c t s unless (it) is c l e a r l y s h o w n t h a t t h e r e has been a m i s a p p r e h e n s i o n o f e v i d e n c e , a m i s c a r r i a g e o f ju st ice or violat ion o f s o m e principle o f law or p r o c e d u r e . ” A f t e r c a r e f u l l y go i n g t h r o u g h th e p r oc e e di ng s a nd j u d g m e n t s o f b o t h c o u r t s b e lo w , g r o u n d s o f a p p e a l and s u b m i ss i o n s o f t he p a r t i e s before this court, T am satisfied that in the instant case, there has been no m is a p p r e h e n s i o n ol e v i d e n c e , a m i s c a r r i a g e of j us tic e or v i o l a ti o n o f s o m e principle o f law or p r o c e d u r e . As a l r e a d y poi nt ed o u t , all th e g r o u n d s a p p e a l e s s e n ti a l ly t o u c h on su ff iciency of e v i d e n c e . I t is c le a r t h e r e f o r e that there are no compelling r e a s on s for disturbing the concurrent findings o f f a c t s o f t h e tw o co ur t s below. H o w e v e r , e v e n if J w e re to s a y t h a t th er e is c a u s e to ju s ti f y c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e a p p e a l 0 1 1 m e r i t s , w hi c h as a fo re sa id is l a ck in g , I would still s a y that, th e trial c o u r t r ig h tl y found t ha t tin* e v i d e n c e it re ceived did not p r o v e t h e c h a r g e a g a i n s t t h e r e s p o n d e n t s h e y o n d th e re qu ir e d s t a n d a r d . A s we a r e a w a r e , it is a s a l u t a r y principle o f law t h a t e x c e p t w h e r e a p a r t i c u l a r s t a t u t e d i r e c t s o t h e r w i s e , the h u r d c n o f proof in all c r im i n a l ca se s lie s q u a r e l y on t h e p r o s e c u t io n side. T h e p r o s e c u t i o n is e n c u m h e red to p r o v e h e y o n d r e a s o n a b l e dou bt that the pe r s on (s ) c h a r g e d indeed c o m m i t ted t h e said offe nce . T h i s ha s heen r e - s t a t e d in a n u m b e r o f ca se s, in clu di ng t h o s e o f M ar u zu k i i I la m i s i v. Rep ubl ic ( 1 9 9 7 ) T . L . R . 1, M w it a an d o t h e r s v. R e p u b l i c ( 1 9 7 7 ) L . R . T . 5 4 and J o n a s Nkize v. Re p ub lic (1 9 9 2 ) T .L .R . 213. J t w as held in the l a t e r c a s e o f J o n a s Nkize v. R e p ub lic (su p ra ) tliat:- “ t h e g e n e r a l rule in c r im i n a l p r o s e c u t i o n that t h e on us of p r o v i n g t h e c h a r g e agai nst th e a c c u s e d h e y o n d r e a s o n a b l e do u b t lies on th e prosecution, is part of our la w, and f o r g e t t i n g or i gno ri ng it is u n f o r g i v a b l e , a nd is a peril n o t w o r t h t a k in g .' ” T h e a b o v e c o u r t ’s p r o p o s i t i o n w as based on th e e x p r e s s i o n s in th e two f a m o u s E n g l i s h c a s e s o f Wooliiiiiigton v D P P [ 1 9 3 5 ) 2 5 a n d Manciiii v D P P [ 1 9 4 1 ] 3 All E . R . [ 1 9 4 1 ] 3 All E R 2 7 2 . hi t h e l a t t e i • c a s e o f Manciiii v D P P , V i s c o u n t S i m o n L C , said: 44.... I would formulate th e following pr o p o si t io n s: W o o l m i n g t oil's ca s e is c o n c e r n e d with e x p l a i n i n g , and r e in fo rc i n g th e rule, tha t th e p r o s e c u t i o n must p r o v e the charge it makes, be y o n d reasonable doubt, a nd c o n s e q u e n t l y , t h a t if. 0 1 1 th e m a t e r i a l before th e j ur y, t h e r e is a re as on a b l e d o u b t , th e pr is o ne r shoul d h a v e t h e benefit ol it. T h e rule is g en er al a p p l i c a t i o n , in all c h a r g e s , un d er the c r im i n a l law. 'The on l y e x c e p t i o n s a ris e, as e x p l a in e d in W i l m i n g t o n ' s c a s e , in th e def ence of insanity, and in offences w he re o n u s of p r o o f is s p e c ia ll y dealt with by s t a t u t e . ” I t sh oul d be p o i n t e d out here t h a t , the c o u r t will no t be c o n s i d e r e d to h a v e p r o p e r l y d i s c h a r g e d su ch d u t y w her e it did no t t a k e in to a c c o u n t t h e e v i d e n c e for t h e d ef en ce . A g a i n , this was c le a r l y s t a t e d in th e c a s e of L i g w a K u s a n j a a n d a n o t h e r v. Rep ublic. C ri m in al A pp ea l N o . 1 1 3 ol 1 9 9 9 , Cou rt o f A p p e a l ( T ) , M w a n z a R e g is t ry ( u n r e p o r t e d ) in w h ic h it was st a t e d t li a t: - 44\Ve t h in k t h a t it is a ba si c prin ciple in a j u d g m e n t t h a t before r e a c h i n g a decision a c o u r t h a s to co ns id e r, and de m o n stra te that it has c o n s i d e r e d all e v i d e n c e r e c e iv e d . It will th en a c c e p t or r e j e c t c e r t a i n e v i d e n c e as il co n s i d e r s appropriate*. W e th in k f u r t h e r t h a t it is a serious misdirect ion for a c ou r t in its j u d g m e n t to c o n s i d e r only I lie e v i d e n c e of in support, of one p a r t y in a c a s e a nd c o m p l e t e l y ignore t h e e v i d e n c e for t h e o t h e r p a r t y , h o w e v e r w or th l e s s it might a p p e a r . ” O f c o u r s e , it is not necessary to m a k e a finding t h a t it is a b s o l u t e l y c e r t a i n in e s t a b l i s h i n g c r im i n a l guilt: it is e n o u g h tha t one feels c e r t a i n t h a t th e a c c u s e d is gu i l ty . On pe r us in g th e e v i d e n c e of P W 1 , P W 2 , P W 3 a nd P W 4 , one no te s t h a t none o f t h e m s u b s t a n t i a t e d th a t the r e s p o n d e n t s b r ok e t h e a p p e l l a n t ’s kraal. All o f t h e m , e x c e p t P W l , testified t ha t t h e y a p p r e h e n d e d t h e first r e s p o n d e n t on a c c o u n t t h a t t h e y saw him d r i v in g t h e said he r d o f c a t t l e at nigh w h i c h by i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , was the only re a s on w h y t h e y d e c i d e d to a p p r e h e n d th e r e s p o n d e n t s . E v e n , it was th e t e s t i m o n y of t h e def ence witnesses t h a t t h e said herd o f c a t t l e was o r d i n a r i l y u n d e r t h e c u s t o d y and c a r e o f t h e s ec ond r e s p o n d e n t , and t ha t th e first re s p on d e n t co lle c te d it fr om t h e f o r m e r ’s h o m e s t e a d . That c o n t r a d i c t s th e a p p e l l a n t ’s e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e r e s p o n d e n t s b r o k e into her kraal from w he re in t h e y stole t h e said h er d o f c a t t l e . In this c o u r t ’s o p i n i o n , t h e r e were m a t t e r s w h ic h the a p p e l l a n t n e v e r w a n t e d to let k n o w n to th e c o u r t w hi c h se em to be t h e s t r a t u m of all this. T h i s is 0 1 1 t h e basis of t h e e v i d e n c e of I ) W 3 A b r a h a m u S e l o t K a a y a w ho c o v e r e d on e m o r e i m p o r t a n t aspe ct w o r t h c o n s i d e r in g t h a t pr ior to all th es e, t h e a p p e l l a n t and second resp ond en t had i m p e n d i n g p r o b l e m s in c o n n e c t i o n w i t h I he qu e s t io n ol i n h e r it a n c e . I a m s a y i n g t h e a pp e ll a nt did not disclose this (act be c a u s e at no given t im e did she i n t i m a t e t h a t she w a s r e l a t e d to t h e r e s p o n d e n ts . She was d e l i b e r a t e l y v e r y silent on this a s p e c t . M o r e o v e r , D W 3 said t h a t t h e secon d r es pon den t h a d i n f o r m e d him as i vi llage C h a i r m a n t h a t she w a s m o v i n g a w a v th e oi d y he rd of c a t t l e w h ic h w a s left u n d e r he r c u s t o d y for s e c u r i t y purp os es . I n d e e d , this w a s a n o t h e r piece o f e v i d e n c e w h ic h t end ed to show t ha t the trial c o u r t r ig ht ly held t h a t th e r e w a s 1 1 0 e v i d e n c e to pr o v e the re sp ondent s ’ guilt. G iv e n t h e a b o v e s i t u a t i o n , it is th e view of this c o u r t t h a t if t h e a p p e l l a n t t h i n k s t h a t t h e he r d o f c a t t l e in issue belongs to th e e s t a t e of her late f a t h e r t h e said E p h r a i m as op p os e d to t h e se co nd r e s p o n d e n t ’s a s s e rt io n t h a t it w a s d i s t i n c t l y hers, th e best she c a n do in t he c i r c u m s t a n c e s is to file a su it, in he r capacity as the ad m i n is t rat ix of the said estate, e n d e a u v o r i n g t o r e c o v e r it. It is in this w a y t h a t she will h a v e p r o p e r l y d i s c h a r g e d on e o f her du t i e s as an a d m i n i s t r a t o r . In a c o n c l u s i o n , t h e trial cou rt pr ope rl y found t ha t the c o m p l a i n a n t did n o t p r o v e h e r c a s e a ga i ns t the r e s p o n d e n ts b e yo n d d o u b t , t h e r e fo re t h a t th e first a p p e l l a t e c o u r t ri g h tl y upheld the j u d g m e n t of t h a t c o u r t . In the circum stances, the appeal lacks m e r it s and is h e r e b y dismissed in its entirety. (Sg«0 Mmilla, B. M. Judge 7- II-2 00 «. Date: 7/] 1/2008 C o r a m : B . M. K . M m il l a , J . F o r the A p p e l l a n t : P r e s e n t . F o r the R e s p o n d e n t : Absent . Co urt : J u d g m e n t de l iv e re d in ch ai n hers this 7 th d a y o f N o v e m b e r , 2 0 0 8 in t h e p r e s en c e o f t h e ap p e l l a n t but in t he a b s e n c e o( b o t h r e s p o n d e n t s . AT ARUSHA. (Spd) Mmilla, B . M . Judge 7/11/2008 I c e r t i f y t h a t this is a t r u e c o p y o f the original. B M M /j ii.