republic vs steven wambura nafu steven mwita 2023 tzhc 23892 15 november 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA MUSOMA DISTRICT REGISTRY ATTARIME CRIMINAL SESSIONS CASE NO. 185 OF 2022 REPUBLIC VERSUS STEVEN S/O WAMBURA NAFU @ STEVEN MWITA JUDGMENT October & 15 November, 2023 M. L, Komba, J.: MATINDE D/O NYAMHANGA MUHIRI - 60 years (Bibi Matinde) died on 27th April, 2022. Her death is reported to be unnatural one as she was found with a wound on her head the morning of material date. It was prosecution testimony that Bibi Matinde was invaded by three young men at night who beaten her to death. Those mobsters used various weapons including club, machete and stick in fulfilling their ill will. Bibi Matinde found dead in her room laying over her mattress which she used to sleep with her grandchild called Rose. That's what made prosecution to arrest the accused herein and charged him with capital offence of murder. It is capital because when proved its punishment is death. Page 1 of 26 Accused person pleaded not guilty to the offence levelled against him and his plea attracted full trial. Prosecution made the case by five (5) witnesses and three exhibits. It was PW5 Rose Nyamhanga Mwita, a child of 13 years who witnessed the incident. She testified that on 27 April 2022 while sleeping with her grandmother three people break the door and entered into the room where they were sleeping. She identified those people to be Jose, Steven and Mnanka. She said they pulled Bibi Matinde from bed room to the sitting room and started to beat her in her backside, on stomach and chest by using stick and club. She testified that those people pulled again Bibi Matinde to outside where they continue beating her, this time they had more weapon, machete and they beat her on head while asking for the Joyce, a daughter of one of mobsters called Joseph. Witness informed this court that Bibi Matinde died while she was outside when those three people were beating her, she informed this court that she noticed she was died as she was not speaking neither breathing. Seeing Bibi Matinde in that situation, she said those people took back Bibi Matinde and placed her into her mattress in her room and covered her with bedsheet. Joyce went missing from their home and on previous day (26/04/2022) she passed to PW5 intending to pick her so that they can go Page 2 of 26 to collect firewood. PW5 who was staying with bibi Matinde testified that she did not escort her. She said Joyce went alone and Bibi Matinde informed those mobsters that Joyce was not in her house but they continue beating her. PW5 testified to this court that she rised an alarm but accused and his fellow stopped her. She confirmed to see three people and identified them by using a solar torch which was in their bedroom and another torch was from those three people. She mentioned the three people who invaded them are Joseph, Steven and Mnanka. PW5 confirmed that she knows them all as they were neighbours. She was very near to the scene, like three paces from where the beating took place and her position. She said the action took them a long time enough to prepare a porridge. She explained that after they return Bibi Matinde in her room, accused and his fellow arranged the broken door to its position and disappeared. PW5 decided to go to their neighbour called Rhobi (mother of Joseph who is one of the mobsters). She said accused and his fellow went to Rhobi's house and asked Rhobi to open the door but Rhobi replied Rose was not there. In the morning, the husband of Rose's aunt, Prescus phoned Rhobi whereby PW5 managed to talk to him and informed him what happened. Page 3 of 26 After the story, it was said that Prescus went to the village and met PW5 who after explanation she mentioned the names of three people to Prescus while at Rhobi's house. Together with Prescus, PW5 went to Bibi Matinde's house and made an alarm, people responded and later on police officers came. She said Police interrogated her and took the body of Bibi Matinde and herself to police station. During cross examination this witness confirmed what she informed police when she was taken to police station on the material date and all were recorded. She explained that they usually went to sleep around 21:00 hours and by 00:00 they were totally asleep leaving the torch on. She explained when somebody wakeup it is not possible to recognise things immediately. When she heard the door was broken, she afraid and when she saw Bibi Matinde was beaten, she hides her face on mattress. She informed this court that attackers used their torch to flash her on eyes. About the mobsters, she informed the court that they visited Bibi Matinde a day before, claiming Joyce and threaten Bibi Matinde but she did not report to street leader that Bibi Matinde was threatened by accused and his fellow. She testified further that what she informed this court is the same Page 4 of26 story she informed police and accepted her statement which was recorded by police to be used in this case. The same was admitted as Exh D2. Bibi Matinde was a citizen in Lembwili street which was led by Julias Mwita Kisiory (PW2) as a street chairman. Mr. Julias informed this court that on 27/04/2022 around 08:00 am he received a phone call from Justine informing him that a woman found dead in her house. He then informed police and decided to go to the place where it was said the death took place and found the granddaughter of deceased called Rose and inlaw of Bibi Matinde together with neighbours. It was his evidence that police came with a car, removed the hanged door upon entering in the house they found the body of Bibi Matinde covered with a black sheet. The body was taken outside where it was examined and found with a wound at the forehead and her chest was damaged as if she was beaten by a blunt object. It was his story that while at the house of deceased, police interrogated PW5 (Rose) and explained what happened and mentioned people she saw at night by their names. This witness and PW5 were taken to police for further steps. Page5 of 26 The body of Bibi Matinde was examined by Dr Masiaga Joseph Chacha (PW1) on 28/04/2022 at Tarime District Hospital. The body was introduced to him by Moses Chacha and Bhoke Nyamhanga. By physical appearance this witness testified that the body of Bibi Matinde had a wound at the head (2cm x 1cm depth) which was caused by a sharp object and the swollen chest. He further testified that the body had many wounds with clotted blood inside and she had broken ribs. From his observation he informed this court that cause of death was internal bleeding on wounds and attack on chest. He prepared post mortem report which was admitted as exh Pl. During cross examination by Mr. Samson Sarno, counsel for the accused person this witness testified that he did not conduct operation, he just observed the body by his eye. The multiple wounds as appeared in the report should not be regarded rather his testimony in court. One of the suspects of murder, accused herein, was arrested by G4393 DC Vitus (PW4). Following information from informer, this witness had to travel to Bunda as the suspect was said to be at Balili street next to Robana Primary School. Upon arrived to the street, this witness and another policeman, asked neighbours about the location of the house of Page 6 of 26 Mzee Wambura where the suspect was. They went straight to the pointed house and a girl came outside and they asked for Steven pretending is their friend. Steven appeared from inside and they immediately arrested him. He informed this court that they introduced to him and informed him to be suspected of killing Bibi Matinde. They took Steven to Bunda Police Station and this witness proceeded to other duties at Mwanza. On cross examination this witness insisted all information in his testimony were recorded to police from location of the house, cooperation by neighbours and his trip to Mwanza. Statement of this witness was admitted by this court as exh DI. However, in his statement made before the police, PW4 didn't mentioned the location of the house they arrested the accused, he didn't mentioned that he asked three people about the location of the house, he didn't mentioned that the house was near the primary school nor he didn't mentioned about the girl whom they found at the house. The whole murder incident was investigated by E. 9218 DC Sgt Ernest who on 27/04/2022 together with other police went to the scene, at the house of Bibi Matinde. He testified that they found many people including street Chairman Mr. Julias (PW2). They removed the door of the house Page 7 of 26 which was hanged and went to the room, they find Bibi Matinde laying on mattress while covered with black bed sheet. They took the body outside for observation and found it had one wound at the head, and had swollen chest. At the scene they interrogate some few people including a granddaughter of the deceased, PW5 who informed them that around 00:00 hours while they slept with her grandmother, the door was broken and three people whom she knows them by names (Steven Wambura Mwita, Joseph Magoiga Msyomi and Mnanka Nyahiri) entered in their house while holding machete and club. He said PW5 managed to identify all suspects because on 26/04/2022 they went to the house of her grandmother and threatening, condemning her to be witch as she causes disappearance of Joyce, daughter of Joseph. He managed to draw sketch map which was admitted as Exh P2 This witness further testified that the body of Bibi Matinde was taken to Tarime District hospital and witnesses were taken to police Station for them to record their statements. In fulfilling his duties as an investigator, he testified that he visited Tarime hospital where examination of the body of Bibi Matinde was conducted, he was together with relatives of Bibi Page 8 of 26 Matinde called Bhoke Nyamhanga while the examination of the body was conducted. This witness was informed by doctor that cause of death of Bibi Matinde was chest injury as she was beaten by heavy blunt object which cause effects on ribs and cause internal bleeding. He said the death was not normal. DC Ernest further informed this court that he recorded caution statement of the accused (but not tendered) and he admit to be at the scene on day and hour which crime took place and it was Joseph and Mnanka who killed Bibi Matinde. He further discovered that the girl who was said to disappear was reachable at her school, on that day where she was missing she went to visit her relatives. Investigator discovered and he believed the accused participated in crime basing on information from PW5 whom she saw the accused with his fellow and she knew them. Further he said the action of disappearance of the accused immediately after the crime suggests he committed the offence. He too recorded the statement of one Moses Chacha Koroso, who told him there were four people who are Joseph, Steve, Mnanka and Magoiga who were claiming for the lost child and agreed with Bibi Matinde to be given Page 9 of26 money for divination (ram/i). The statement of Moses was admitted by this court as exh P3 as he was nowhere to be seen. During cross examination this witness acknowledge he did not take fingerprints of the person who was in court, he did not record fingerprints on bedsheet which covered the body of Bibi Matinde neither on mattress explaining that he found of no importance but insisted it was the accused who was in court who killed Bibi Matinde. He acknowledges in the sketch map there is no sign of torch though PW5 informed him there was a solar torch which was not among exhibit. He clarified he saw only one wound at the head of Bibi Matinde, actually there were only one wound at the head as he participated in examination of the body which was an eye examination. He testified he did not parade Rose to identify the accused after he was arrested. On his side, DW1 Steven Wambura Nafu relied on alibi that on the material day which prosecution said Bibi Matinde was murdered he was in Bunda where he was taking care of his farm as he is a farmer. Bunda is their home as he was born there and some of his economic activities including agriculture is conducted in Bunda. He informed this court he was arrested while in Bunda (he did not remember the date) and he was Page 10 of 26 transported direct to Tarime Police Station. Upon interrogation he denied to commit the said offence even upon torture he maintained he did not commit the offence. DW1 went on saying eye witness failed to see who were those people who invaded their home as she was from sleeping and the torch was flashed her eyes. As the body was covered by the said mobsters, he said it was for prosecution to prove that he was among those who touch the bed sheet by tendering fingerprint report but that was not the case. He maintained he did not participate in the killing as he was not identified in parade after his arrest because he was arrested after the occurrence of the crime. He is witness just like any witness. After having heard the prosecution and defence witnesses in this case, there is no doubt that Matinde Nyamhanga Muhiri (Bibi Matinde) is dead and her death was unnatural. The issue for determination is who caused the deceased's death. I need to address my mind to the predominant legal principles which are of relevance to this case in order to ensure that no innocent person is convicted of freak or flimsy evidence. The prosecution is placed with a heavy burden than that of the accused. The first long- established principle in criminal justice is that of onus of proof in criminal cases that the accused committed the offence for which he is charged with, Page 11 of 26 is always on the side of the prosecution and not on the accused person. This is reflected under Section 110 and Section 112 of the Evidence Act, Cap.6 [R.E 2022], and cemented in the case of Joseph John Makune vs Republic [1986]TLR44. The second principle is that the standard of proof in criminal cases that is required by law is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court of Appeal of Tanzania in the case of Mohamed Haruna @ Mtupeni & Another vs Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 2007 (unreported) held that:- ' Of course, in cases of this nature, the burden of proof is always on die prosecution. The standard has always been proof beyond a reasonable doubt....' There is a package of authority that provides for essential ingredients of the offence of murder. In criminal jurisprudence, in order to be victorious, the prosecution has to prove the followings elements that establish the offence of murder that first; there is the death of a person, second; the said death was caused by unlawful act or omission, third; it is the accused who caused the death of deceased and fourth; the accused acted with malice aforethought. Page 12 of 26 Regarding the first and second element there is no doubt that Bibi Matinde died and her death was unnatural one as she met her demise at night while sleeping. I am in difficulty to conclude what cause her death as PW1 had contradiction expert opinion on this. While in court he testified that deceased had one wound at her head which was caused by sharp object and she had many wounds at her chest with broken ribs. Reading Exh Pl which was prepared by himself it reads; 'SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT, ABNORMAL FINDINGS AT EXAMINATION; there is multiple cut wounds on the head + multiple swelling on tiie chest with heamatona, clothes soaked with blood.' Cause of death as per Exh Pl is chest injury and internal bleeding as was in his testimony in court. What party of the body had multiple wounds remain as paradox. Further he records source of death to be internal bleeding but he confirms while in court that he did not conduct operation over the dead body. One may ask how he saw the internal bleeding to cause the death of the deceased. Basing on PW1 testimony and Exh Pl it is not possible to concluding that the death was unnatural though I agree that Bibi Matinde died. The critical issue is whether the deceased was murdered by the accused person as paraded by prosecution. Page 13 of 26 From prosecution, the evidence to consider in order to determine whether the accused is responsible for the deceased's death rests on the testimonies adduced by PW5 who was an eye witnesses who said to witness the accused and his fellow assaulted the Bibi Matinde to her death. I had time to hear arid read the PW5 testimony in court and her statement which she recorded on the same date after the incident which was admitted as Exh DI. PW5 is an eye witness who informed this court that accused and his fellow broke the door of their house, they entered in the room where they were slept. First; While inside the house what did these people do, they pulled Bibi Matinde to sitting room and started to beat her and later on they pulled her outside and continue to assault her. But in Exh DI which was recorded on the same day which the crime took place she records that the assault took place while in bedroom and Joseph cut Bibi Matinde on her head while in bedroom and then they took her outside and continue to assault her. Second; While in court she testified that PW5 and her grandmother had one solar torch which was used while cooking and they sleep with it while Page 14 of 26 it was on up to 00:00 hours when accused and his fellow entered in their house. The light from their torch was reduced as it was on for a long time. However, she said she managed to see everything as accused and his company had a torch too, this was 18 months after the crime. In Exh DI which was recorded on material date she did not say anything about the second torch. Third; while in court she testified that there were two torches and that she used the light from the torch of accused and others to identify them. But in Exh DI she said there was only one torch which was used by themselves but she did not say how she managed to see accused and his fellow as the said only torch was beside the mattress. Four; while in court PW5 said she did not remember to see attackers at the house of her grandmother except the day they had a torch. But in Exh DI she explained attackers visited their house the evening before the crime and threaten to kill Bibi Matinde. All these discrepancies are from prosecution witness and an aye witness. The discrepancies pointed above concerned the light which assisted PW5 to see those who entered in their house on particular night. Before I analyse Page 15 of 26 whether the discrepancies are major or minor let's consider other testimony by PW5. During cross examination she testified that accused and his company had their torch which they used to flash her in her eyes. In normal circumstances when eyes are flashed with bright light capacity to see is reduced. She further testified that when those people beat her grandmother, she was afraid and she was hiding her face on mattress. If that was so, how did she manage to see and identified the attackers. That being not enough, she clearly testified that when somebody came from sleep, she could not see properly as she/he will still be in sleepy and it Is not possible to recognise things properly. I find PW5 was from a sleep and she was flashed in her eyes with torch a process which reduced her capacity to see. Moreover, she said she was hiding in mattress when those people were assaulting her grandmother. Was she able to see properly and manage to recognise the attackers? It is from this perspective that this court is obliged to analyze the evidence on the record as to whether the identification was proper. As stated in Philip Rukaiza vs Republic in Criminal Appeal No. 215 of 1994 at Mwanza (unreported), the Court of Appeal of Tanzania held that: Page 16 of 26 'The evidence in every case where visual identification is what is relied on must be subjected to careful scrutiny, due regard being paid to all the prevailing conditions to see if in all the circumstances, there was really sure opportunity and convincing ability to identify the person correctly and that every reasonable possibility of error has been dispelled. There could be a mistake in the identification notwithstanding the honest belief of an otherwise truthful identifying witness.' Admittedly, the evidence going to incriminate the accused herein is visual identification evidence, PW5 was of the testimony that he saw attackers the evening the day before the crime and they were living in the same street. This made the identification easy. As eloquent as this testimony sounds, the law on visual identification is quite astute in our legal system. It is to the effect that, conviction of an accused person can be grounded on visual if such evidence is watertight and leaves no possibility of errors. This requirement has been emphasized in a plethora of other decisions of the Court of Appeal of Tanzania, in the celebrated case of Waziri Amani vs. Republic [1980] TLR 250, the Court of Appeal of Tanzania held that: '(i) Evidence of visual identification is of the weakest kind and most unreliable; Page 17 of 26 (ii) No court should act on evidence of visual identification unless all possibilities of mistaken identity are eliminated and the court is fully satisfied that the evidence before it is absolutely watertight.' To ensure that the evidence is watertight, several principle guidelines have to be taken into consideration by the court, including, among others, if the incident took place at night, the evidence must clearly state if there was a light, then: - First, the source, type, and intensity of the light, and second, the size of the area illuminated. Starting with the first aspect, the source, type, and intensity of the light. The source of light at the scene of the crime casts doubts. PW5 testified to have identified the accused and other persons by the aid of the solar torch which was in their bedroom that night and another torch which was used by attackers. Staring with the torch found in their house, she admitted that they had a solar torch, the issue now is the extent of light. I find the extent of light in the said room casts doubt. While in court PW5 testified that she put the torch on around 18:00 hour when she was cooking and they went to sleep around 21:00 hours. The crime took place around 00:00 hours which is almost six hours the torch was on. She admitted in court that when the flash of the torch is on for long time, its Page IS of 26 intensity is reduced. I too find the possibility of light to be reduced due to time. In the absence of intensity light, PW5 was not able to see and identified accused properly at that night when they entered in the room which herself and Bibi Matinde was, the fact which she admitted. Further PW5 said attackers had their own torch and she used the light from their torch to recognize them. But on other hand, she said she was afraid and used to hide on mattress and attackers used to flash her eyes and she looked down. In the fraction of these two issues (of looking down and hiding on mattress) I find it is not possible to eliminate all possible mistakes in identification done by PW5 as was in Waziri Amani vs. Republic (supra). PW5 was in fear when attackers entered in their room and she was looking down when they flashed on her eyes. Therefore, based on the above analysis, the discrepancies pointed out earlier are not minor to the extent of how many torches were there during the crime. I have to conclude that PW5 evidence creates doubt on whether she made the correct identity of attackers including the accused person herein. This takes into consideration the fact that, for all the positive attributes that it has, this kind of testimony is prone to serious danger that are bred by its unreliability. Owing to this serious undoing, courts have Page 19 of 26 been warned against relying on the testimony unless all possibilities of mistaken identity are eliminated. This position was accentuated in the case of Galous Faustina vs. Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 2 of 2009 (unreported), the Court of Appeal of Tanzania had the following observations: - 'The law on visual identification, be it of a stranger or of a known person (i.e. recognition) is now well settled. It Is trite law that such evidence is of the weakest type and Courts should not act on it unless all possibilities of mistaken identity are eliminated, furthermore, the Courts must be fully satisfied that the evidence clearly shows the conditions favouring a correct identification and is accordingly watertight.' [Emphasis added]. Similarly, in the case of Joseph Michael and Another vs Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 213 & 215 of 2014 (unreported) it was stated that, We wish to stress that even in recognition cases, dear evidence on the source of light and its intensity is of paramount importance. As occasionally held, even when a witness is purporting to recognize someone whom he knows, as was the case here, mistakes in recognition of dose relatives and friends are often made. '[Emphasis added]. Page 20 of 26 In this case, conditions in which the identification was allegedly done were far less conducive for proper and unmistakable identification. They fell short of the required standard; circumstances of the case would not enable PW5 to make a correct identification. The fact that PW5 was on fear of attackers which made her hide on mattress and the fact that she was looking down when attackers flashed on her eyes; the combined impact of these, would not meet the required threshold of intensity that would pass the test. Before I conclude I find it necessary to analyse the testimony as portrayed in Exh P3. The issue for determination is whether the circumstantial evidence in this instant case can ground conviction upon the accused person? Established law is that in order to find a conviction on circumstantial evidence, that evidence must point precisely to the guilt of the accused. Such evidence must exclude any other reasonable hypothesis than that of guilt as well as exclude co-existing circumstances which would tend to weaken or destroy such an inference: see, for instance, Mswahili Muhugara vs Republic (1997) T.L.R 25, Jonas Bulai vs Republic (Criminal Appeal 49 of 2016) [2010] TZCA 70 and Page 21 of 26 Emmanuel Kondrad Yosipati vs. Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 296 of 2017. The Court of Appeal of Kenya in the case of Sawe vs Republic [2003] KLR had this to say:- 'In order to justify on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt, the inculpatory facts must be incompatible with the innocence of the accused and incapable of explanation upon any other reasonable hypothesis than that of his guilt. There must be no other co-existing circumstances weakening the chain of circumstances retied upon. The burden ofproving facts thatjustify the drawing of this inference from the fads to the exclusion of any other reasonable hypothesis of Innocence remains with the prosecution. It is a burden that never shifts to the party accused.' In a case, depending largely upon circumstantial evidence, there is always a danger that conjecture or suspicion may take the place of legal proof. The court must satisfy itself that various circumstances in the chain of the events must be such as to rule out a reasonable likelihood of the innocence of the accused. Therefore, this court must be watchful and avoid the danger of allowing the suspicion to take the place of legal proof for Page 22 of 26 sometimes unconsciously it may happen to be a short step between moral certainty and legal proof. In the instant case, PW5 in Exh DI recorded that (this was not testified in court) that on 26.04.2022 in the evening their home was visited by three people, accused, Joseph and Mnanka. They asked whereabout of Bibi Matinde and she replied she was outside with Moses. She said they followed Bibi Matinde and asked whereabout of a girl called Joyce who was missing. They threatened Bibi Matinde. Following that she run to the nearby house and report the incident that those people wanted to kill Bibi Matinde. On other hand, Moses Chacha Koroso who was said to be with Bibi Matinde when those visitors threatened her, recorded his statement which was admitted herein as Exh P3 that on 25/04/2022 he was visited by four young men complaining of the habit of Bibi Matinde while suspecting her of witchcrafts practice. They claimed that a girl called Joyce was taken by Bibi Matinde magically. He asked them to meet at the house of Bibi Matinde on the same day and they did. They threatened Bibi Matinde and thereafter they had a discussion and they agreed to go to divination {kupiga ramli) on the next day after being given money for that. This incident was not reported anywhere not even to the street leader. Page 23 of 26 Supposed these three people who visited Bibi Matinde and witnessed by Moses Chacha Koroso agreed to go for divination on the following day how can one say they are the same who killed Bibi Matinde. Although this story is collaborated with one of PW5 only on the issue that three people visited their home and talked to Bibi Matinde, content of story is not collaborated that they will be given money for them to go for divination. What if they were waiting for the money for divination. If there was serious issue the same was supposed to be reported to Police or other relevant authorities on material date. Based on the above analyses, it is clear that the chains of circumstantial evidence linking the accused person to the death of Bibi Matinde is broken therefore it cannot lead this court to conclude that the accused person and other two people who visited Bibi Matinde are responsible for her death. In a Criminal charge, suspicion alone, however grave may be, is not enough to sustain a conviction, all the more so, in a serious charge of murder. See Nathaniel Alphonce Mapunda and Benjamin Mapunda vs. Republic, [2006] T.L.R. 395 and Adinardi Iddi Salimu and Another vs. The Republic, 3 Criminal Appeal No. 298 of 2018 (unreported). Page 24 of 26 Accused relied on <?//#/that he was in Bunda when the killing occurred in Tarime. He did not utilize the provisions of section 194 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, it is trite that accused person is not found guilty for his weak defence. See Anthony Kinanila and Another vs. The Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 83 of 2021 (unreported). Accused herein who appeared as DW1 managed to shake the prosecution testimony on identification at scene and identification parade after arrest which was not conducted. He further pointed the weakness of prosecution on failure to ' ” " A*. conduct scientific investigation by using fingerprints on mattress, bedsheet which cover the body versus fingerprints of the accused person. This is a murder case however slightly the doubt raised, the trial court has to direct itself in deciding in favour of the accused, the accused ought to be convicted on the strength of the prosecution case as it was held in the case of Christian s/o Kaale and Rwakiza s/o Bernard vs Republic (1992] TLR 302. In the case of Aidan Mwalulenga vs Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 207 of 2006 a suspicion cannot sustain a conviction. It entitles an accused person to an acquittal on the benefit of doubts. Page 25 of 26 Basing on all that have been said, I proceed to acquit the accused person, STEVEN S/O WAMBURA NAFU @ STEVEN MWITA. I order the accused to be released from the prison unless he is otherwise lawful held. It is so ordered. DATED at MUSOMA this 15thday of November 2023. M. L. KOMBA JUDGE Page 26 of 26