CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 64 of 2023JUMA MAVUZI NEWNEWNEW

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA MTWARA SUB- REGISTRY AT MTWARA CRIMINAL APPEAL CASE NO 64 OF 2023 (Originating from Criminal Case No 69/2022; In the District Court of Masasi at Masasi) JUMA HUSSEIN ALLY @MAVUZI.................. APPELLANT VERSUS THE REPUBLIC ........ .... RESPONDED JUDGMENT Date oflast Order: 6/11/2023 Date ofJudgement: 27/11/2023 LALTAIKA, J, The appellant herein JUMA HUSSEIN ALLY @MAVUZI (and another not a part of this appeal) were arraigned in the District Court of Masasi at Masasi court charged with one count of stealing contrary to section 258 and 265 of the Penal Code Cap 16 RE 2022. It was the prosecution's allegation that on 21/3/2022 at 21:00 hours at Lukuledi Area in Masasi District, the appellant and another stole a motorcycle make TVS black in colour with Chassis Number Page 1 of7 MD625AF4XMIK22970 with engine number DF4KM1421822 valued atTZS 2,500,000 property of one Ramadhani Hassan. When the charge was read over and explained to the appellant, he pleaded not guilty. This necessitated the conducting of a full trial. Having been convinced that the prosecution had left no stone unturned in proving the allegations, the learned trial magistrate convicted the appellant as charged. He proceeded to sentence him to a seven-year imprisonment term. In his sentencing remarks, the learned trial magistrate underscored the fact that the appellant had been described as a habitual offender. It appears that he had been involved in stealing motorcycle taxis (popularly known as bodaboda) on several occasions. When the appeal was called on for hearing, the appellant appeared in person, unrepresented. The respondent Republic, on the other hand, appeared through Mr. Melchior Hurubano, learned State Attorney. Not being learned in law, the appellant indicated that he had nothing to add to his five grounds of appeal but reserved his right to a rejoinder should the need arise. This paved the way for Mr. Hurubano who did not waste this court's time. He announced that the Respondent supported the appeal. Pagel pf7 The learned State Attorney noted that he had reviewed the impugned judgment and observed that on page 17, the trial magistrate cited section 235(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act and section 265 of the Penal Code, neither of which established the offence of stealing. Furthermore, he mentioned that on page 19; while sentencing the appellant, the learned magistrate did not specify the section upon which the sentence was based. Mr. Hurubano argued that this omission violated section 312(2) of the CPA, which requires that the reasons for conviction and the relevant legal provisions be stated. Consequently, he opined that the appellant had not been properly convicted and that the matter should be sent back to the trial court for proper conviction and sentencing. In rejoinder, the appellant asserted his innocence, claiming he had never committed the offence and that the second accused was the one who confessed. He noted that a witness named Nambole, initially the first accused, was later turned into a witness. The appellant mentioned meeting Nambole in the police cell on the day of his arrest. Expressing his emotional distress, he shared that he was in pain and felt deeply hurt. He also mentioned being asked to pay a bribe, which his relatives were unable to afford, leading to his imprisonment. The appellant Page 3 of7 concluded by pleading to be acquitted so he could return and contribute to building the nation. I have dispassionately considered the concurrent submissions and keenly examined the lower court records. With all due respect, I do not agree with Mr. Hurubano nor the appellant. Here are my reasons for upholding the conviction and sentence. Firstly, while the trial magistrate cited sections 235(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act and 265 of the Penal Code, it is important to recognize that these sections pertain to the procedural and substantive aspects of criminal law. The specific mention of these sections does not negate the validity of the proceedings. The evidence presented during the trial unequivocally established the appellant's guilt in the commission of the offence of stealing. The technical reference to these sections did not alter the substance of the conviction. Secondly, despite the trial magistrate's omission to state the section upon which the sentence was based on page 19, the overall judgment was clear and detailed. The reasons for the conviction were thoroughly articulated, and the evidence was meticulously evaluated. The appellant was convicted based on solid and uncontroverted evidence, which sufficiently established his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The lack of Page 4 of7 explicit mention of the section for sentencing did not compromise the integrity of the conviction. Thirdly, section 312(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act requires that the judgment should state the reasons for the conviction and the applicable legal provisions. In this case, the trial magistrate provided comprehensive reasons for the conviction. The omission of the specific section during sentencing is a minor procedural oversight that did not affect the fairness of the trial or the validity of the conviction. The judgment as a whole demonstrated substantial compliance with the legal requirements. Fourthly, it is a well-established principle in law that procedural errors should not automatically lead to the overturning of a conviction unless they result in a miscarriage of justice. In this case, the trial court's minor procedural errors did not lead to any miscarriage of justice. The conviction was based on a thorough and fair evaluation of the evidence. Fifthly, the fundamental goal of the criminal justice system is to ensure that justice is served, in this case, the appellant's guilt was established beyond a reasonable doubt through credible evidence and proper judicial process. The technical errors cited by the appellant do not detract from the fact that justice was served. In my opinion, the appellant Page 5 of7 received a fair trial, and the conviction and sentence were just and appropriate given the circumstances of the case. In the upshot, I dismiss the appeal in its entirety. The conviction and sentence of the District Court of Masasi at Masasi upheld. It is so ordered. E.I. LALTAIKA JUDGE 27.11.2023 Court This judgement is delivered under my hand and the seal of this court this 27th day of November 2023 in the presence of Mr. Melchiori Hurubano learned State Attorney for the respondent and the appellant who has appeared in person, unrepresented. E.I. LALTAIKA JUDGE 27.11.2023 Page 6 of 7 Court The right to appeal to the Court of Appeal of Tanzania is fully explained. E.I. LA LTAl KA JUDGE 27.11.2023 Page 7 of 7