20180216 TZCA Tabora

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT TABORA {CORAM: JUMA. C.J .• MUGASHA l.A. And LILA. l.A.) ·· .CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 90 OF 20·12 .. . . . . . . . SHABAN I JUMA. ■■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■■-■•~ ■■■ a- ■■■~ ■■■-■■■~ ■■·• ■■■■■■■■■■■ a ■■■■~ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■ 11• ■APPELLANT" VERSUS . . ' . ' . . .TliE·. Rl;PU-BLIC ... a ••• ~ •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 111l•·················RESPONDENT·::: ~·. .· .•' :., . (App~al from the judg~ent of the High Court of Tanzania at Tabora) .. ' {Songoro,' J.)· dated the. 8 th December, 2015. in <ZPomD0;a[:€as:e. No.• 19' of.<2;QJ1il .-..:JtCr~u>LG.M.e~,: 0,~1f~Eg@il&ir . .,_ , >,,.:,• C ', • •• ,• ,: . . ·- · "\" .( , ,.,,,... O•U . -L~••M .. • •-, ""l" • • . "'> -~•.-},•_?' , >, • ., . 15th & 19th February, 2018 · ·· · JUMA, C.J.: ' . . The appellant herein, SHABAN JUMA, was in the High Court _at Ta~<:>ra chargeo with. . ...~ two c6-u.nts. of rr:iurder, c~~~faiy- t0 se9'.jons 1:96 ~" .. . -, . . the offence alleged that on the 11th day of May, 2008 at Idukilo Village, Kishapu District in Shinyanga Region the appellant murdered_ MILEMBE 1 t ··- -- ---- --- - - -- ----- --------- --- - --- - - . - . - -- - ---·--- ------ ------------ ZENGO .. In the second count, the particulars ·were that, :on same day, at same village, the appellant:murdered KWANGU ZEN.GO.• · To support its ·case, the pro'secution relied on the evidence of two - witnessesi D9338 .D/CPL Isaack (PWl). and C7686 SGT Charles (PW2)·. · The prosecution in addition relied on the cautioned statement bt°the appellant ( exhibit P). In his defence, "the appellant opted to remain._· silent, and he did'"~ot caHanywitnesses. Convinced that the prosecution. had proved its c~se beyond reasonable· doubt, Songoro, J.· found the appellc!nt guilty ·on_Jt)Qth .,. G@Ymts ·@f ffi}H.il{.(j@r. . fi?-1,@:· ~r0ceed~d ta s@rateR(Ee- . . . . . . •' ..;,_:, The appellant was aggrieved· with the· decision of the triai High Court. This appeal before us is based· on 6 grounds of appeal in the -: · · appellant's Memorandum of Appeal dated 27th November, 2017 and . - th file_d. on_ .?8 November, ~017. lJ1e agR@~I ·i~_ 9.lso pr~dic~teo on @. I • . :t • '!,.. --;_... ,,. ·' .... - • • • • ! ~ • • - : . ,. • • • • • • • • . . :-- - • • • • '<"" • • :· ' •• ~ • • • •• • •• ·-Sdppleme"r'1t:ary· Memorandum 0·f. A~ID@@I· ·wr1ich hls•iearned counsel,· Mr> K.K. Kayaga,· filed on 8th February,. 2018, containing one ground of appeal urging the Court to declare the trial a nullity because· both the · 2 trial Judge, and the ·asse$$Ors had. cross, ;examined the ·witness thereby · · • infringing Sections 146 (2) and. 17.7 of•the£vidertce Act> Cap .. 6'..; · : Prior to the commencement of the . hearing of this appeal,. . we raised ' ~ · i. · • two- pi-elimina·ry, points" of law which w~ wanted. Mr.· Kamallza Kayaga, · .. .learned, counsel who. appeared. for the .appellant; and Mr ..beusdedit , Rwegira the learned State Attorney, who appeared for the respondent ·.. · R,epublic, to address us first. Firstly,·we pointed out that although the•:· . learned trial Judge expressed his satisfaction tha~ the appellant. had .. '• . com_rnitted .u~_e -o~o ~f.fe~~@s @f rmtl'llr~-~r am0_ . acc@r.dingly found h.im.- . · t . '• _. .,_. . . §1.ti,~ilt){,. _l:l@ o_ig not <s~nvict .tJA.e~ .a~~e.Ucarn~::®_f. ~tt~f@·J.WV9. offenc~~ .of ,.mµrg~r> .- . ·_ · '.~ · •. ·•"I• •~ • • w ..: • • •, --•• •' •!a~• : •• _-• • •:: •• •"••• • •,.,:._ ;~•:•• .-~• ••• ••. ! • : •.. • :,\..., , - : • . ..,,. ,,.;~• •• :• ~I ~ '"Instead, he proceecieq to impose-< th·e sentence ·of death by hanging o·n · ,.· .. -:, · the two counts of murder. Secondfy, we referred the learned counsel to the· Notice of Appeal appearing on pages 110-111 of. the r~cord which does not s~te the .ri@ture of t-m_e -C£@ritviction .again?t which. the ·· -..... : . a~~~ll~r1_t Vi.©wlq ·,ik~--f@iS- ·(1~-~-rnt .t~, -iru~w~m,.•_. · _.·- ~ · --. • . .. • - • .. t While conceding on both points of law, Mr. Kayaga submitted that this appeal is· not competent before the_ Court, firstly because Songoro, J. end~d up his· Judgment witM a fir<ldin@- 0f @Wilty lDut without convicting_ 3 ... - .... .,__ .. the appellant for two offences. This· anom·a1y;· he ·a·dded; :offends the •· provisions of section 312 (1) -and (2)"of the Criminal Procedure Act, Gap .. - -· 20 RE 2002 (the CPA). Mr. Kayaga invited us tb invoke the Court's - power of revision under s~ction 4 (2) of the . AppellateJurisdictiori Act, cap. 141 (AJA) to quash and set . _aside , the sentence passed~bY the High ·, Court and to direct the learneq trial Judge to e~ter a conviction before imposing the sentence. With regard to t:he notice of appeal, -Mr. Kayaga submitted that it· . . ' - .· . ·,.. ~©rq:vJ'crt..~_~r:r:·f;~i-~tvf(Gf' (i@,ijfilTI~~,0fr1~Uirn(!J_eF);~,$~~iilllQ~tijG;~w.r"~~ler1G;€t;~E-t21:;~jttiet(, .. .~<·.- .. . • . . ... . - ·. ,. - :. ' . • . .. . . .. ··· . . ·,.•\.. : '-~. -~t . .• .- .. tanzania-Coi.Ht·ot-Appeal Rules, 2009 (the. Rules)~ To that extent; he· urged, -the ,~otice of appeal is defective and should not be re§arded to hGJve·initiated this instant appeal. Mr. R:w~ira td0k _a sjmilar -~~anc~ vyith -~e9a~9_ to _th.e- ~o- ijG>iJilts ~f ,. • > •• - • •• • •• ' - • • •• . . . . . .· i~w/ eit.V.1@r ®f w~iet{'" he ~su~mi.tt-ed~ ·mak<:lS.:ffliS ··a!t)~·~~I czj~f~1v~- ~ef,0'fe .. - us. Further, the learned State Attorney _urged that even if the appeal · was competent, the responde_nt Republic would have prayed for an -· adj@urrirnent &>ecat:Js~ .the cauti0n st~t~nierit of- f~_e ag>@ell,afflt Ce*mimit 4 ·~---Pl) ~nd th~ Post-Ma.rtef)J·;E~arni.r:i.ation J;lepqrt of;_~ilembe Zengo (exhibit· . ·_He concluded .bY ,ex.pressing; his P3), are missing. but• f;rbtTI .t_he _ sretord. .' support to the sub~ission_ -~y. Mr. Kayaga that this· Court ·shouJd- invoke: ,. ; l,. • . . ; ,·:· ·1 • ' . its Jevisional jurisdiction .to revise the judgment of the trial High-Court. ·.' ' ' As _rightly submitted .by, th_e -two· learned counsel, .aft~r. finding .the ' t .. ' ' •.• appellant guilty on.two.counts of murder, the learned trial Judge 'should··-, not have moved on to impose the sentence of death by ha·nging without , -·· first entering a conviction on- both· counts. ~y · imposing that sentence . , with@L,lt raijSt emter~ng C0RVictior;ts on the two cou_nts of rqurqer, ~t:te t!fiial · · · · · · ,_ cp~r:t @ijc;J,.ir:t(ii~,e.ct: -~f~:· c-0mp.w!sjy~ p,r9vi~i9,q~_~f;.Sect.lo.n _3-12.:,,1:J::· 02~: ,@f · ~ >. -. _ ,. ··r ~ ·.. -: • • • • : .• ~. .. •• , ~ ~ • • .. • ~ ·_ ..._ ~-: -· .. •• ·_·- ._: ~ .• - . . . . . . . . . . . 4. - : . • .. .., •• • ... • • ; •· • :.- the:_f:IDA which .prescribes the-contents:iof judgments with the ,attendant>· duty of the trial courts to convict upon finding an accused person guilty: ·: --t ''312. -(1) ilver-y Judgment under the proiiisions of section 31J S/;iill exf~fi)t <!£ -.Qth,envfs.e e.5pre-S$ly provid~d ~Y-: th(i · :./4'¢; -IJ.~- ... ~n(tite11 -/Jy_: @r·f1~duc;e1d..-t~ ::~(iP7f:ig · ;;.,<;ler, --ri?; . . ~ ~ ~ personal direction and superintendence of the presiding judge or magistrate . in the language . of the court and shall contain the point or points for determination, the decision - · thereon an,d the reasons for (he dec/siO(J, ·. ?JrJd·-sha/1 be. 5 .. 'I .. .t. ~.. :;, • . •• • lo. • -= .. ~• • .:. • . • • . , ..... a-1, •• · .da_ted and signed.by thepresiding··officer as of the date on which it.is pron~LJnced in open court, .... ·. · .(2) In the case of COf!Viction _the-juffgment sha//. - specify the offence of which, and the section of the -Penal Code or other law· tinder which, the accused • per.son is convicted ancj the punishment to which he is sentenced'~ [Emphasis add~dJ. With regard to this appeal,· we shall follow the unanimous position of the Court to the effect that it i$ an.incurable irregularity contravening,,· S@qion 312 (1) ;~nd -(2) of tpe.CPA; wher~ a tr-!al sub0rc;tinate court, or a . conv-icting a1~- accused_ person 0ho is found _guilty. of .an· offence: -seE7.- · · MATOLA KAJUNI, ENOCK ELIA AND MAN0ELA JIMMY· VS. R.,· - Criminal Appeal No. 145, 146 . ·& .147 of 2011; HASSANI MWAMB~NGA V. R., Criminal AQpeal No. 410 of 2013; . • , ,· -,_ ' • •,,. • C • • • • • •• , • . . '• . q!~Jf~"RJ;#$ Ml.~~itWJii tl. -~,. . .·- . . ' ,~ ~rlJ~~r~@I A~~-@~1- ~b ... 26.8. =of<4014 ' . . . . . "(aff\:• i:: .~.: . : _.,,_. ' ' . . . . unreported). Equally settled, is the position that in criminal appeals to this Court, it. is the No.~ice of Appeal envisa@ecl wmcl'er !Rwle 68 (1) of the Rules 6 ...... • • • I ,' r which in?t~tutes such .an appeal,; .Therefore,. the. two learned counsel are . ,i' • • ' • • #. correct in their unanimous ·submission that by .fanilig to specify the- nature of his convicti0n as required ··under· Rule' 68 (2) ofthe ··Rules, the.·: :. · ·' _. : .· : . ◄ •. . • ?, ~. Notice of Appeal appearing .. . on page 110 '· of the record .... of ... appeal is·· •: • j. • ··• •, defective and to aJI intents and. purposes , we have no: valid appeal•.. : · . ' before us for our .determination on· merit:-·see FABIAN FRANCES @:· · MAHENGE V. R., Criminal Appeal No.326 of 2013 and JO~N PETRO· .. :. :.: · · V. . R., . Criminal Appeal No. 275. of 2014 (both ~ . unreported). . ~ ~ . ' ... . .. In t.be• u~smGt ·@f t.tl,@ f0r:ego_ing, we ~re · in~Hn@d to invoke 0ur . . ~t . .. .- t~v..i-sl.~~~1: . 1?~1~~.@-r;?'."·WJJA@_@f· SE?,~~n 4: (2):·oft~_e4UAric(~d We ·quash a~d s~t'. --_::/· ,, "'\,: - • .._ • • • _, ...,.:, ,.: • • - • • • • • - • ,. , •- , : . • .-\••• a• • , •• • • t ,. . . . . . . ... - . aside the Judgment. ·of the High·: Court together the · subsequent· • :· · · · · sentence of death by -hanging"which were not preceded by conviction of the appellant of.two counts of murder.· • ~ >" •• The ~e~~rd of t:his appeal sh~II be .ret~r,n.ep: ~ack to th_e ~i.9,_h Court . . .. _- . .... - . '. . . -. ,· : . . . . -.< . . . -. :: -. .... .: t - .:... -., ... -. ".' ·\. . / (. . .·. . . at l~J~®r.a ({CrnAAiriral Sessi@n ·e:ase ·No. 17 of 2011) to ·enable tliat caur.t to compose a judgment that complies with the mandatory provisions of. section 312 (2) of the CPA. 7 . .J: . • Once the appellant files his fresh Notice of Appeal, which must comply With Ru,e 68 (~) of the Rules, the Deputy Registrar shall cause the reconstruction of the record to ensure that the cautioned statement . . . of the appellant (Exhibit Pl) and the Post-Mortem Examination Report ·· of the deceased Milembe Zengo (Exhibit P3) referred to by Mr. Rwegira; - . .. . . . . . are included in the record (?f appeal. Meanwhjle, the appellant shall remain in custody. We accordingly order. :-- · · S. E: A. MUGASHA JUSTICE OF APPEAL ' A.H. UMI DEPUTY REGISTRAR ·c@URT. ©..F ~FM~-li,A,L 8