20181019 TZHC Mwanza

I IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA AT,MWANZA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 10 OF 2018 {Originating from Criminal C9se No. 56/ 2017 in the District Court of Tarime) I CHACHA S/0 MATIKO WAMBURA ............................ APPELLANT . l . VERSUS THE REPUBLIC ...................... ~ ......................... RESPONDENT JUDGMENT 10.10.2018 & 19.10.2018 A.Z.MGEYEKWA, J I ' In the District Court 6f Tarime, the appellant Chacha 1 Matiko Wambura namely s1 and charged with offences in the first count of Unlawful Enteri~g in the National Park, contrary to section 21 (1)(a) and (2) sec'tion 29( 1) of the National Park Act I Cap. 282 [R.E 2002] as amended by the Written Laws (Miscellaneous Amendment) Act No. 11 of 2003. The particulars of the offence alleged that Chacha s/o Matiko Wambura on 10th day of September, 2017 at Laembesye I area within the Serengeti National Park in Tarime District, Mara 1 Region, entered into the Serengeti National Park without permission of the Director .thereof previously sought and obtained. In the second count; Unlawful Possession of Weapon in the National Park contrary to section 24(1 )(b} and (2) of the National Park Act, Cap. 282 [R;E 2002]. I The particulars of the offence alleged that Chacha s/o Matiko Wambura, on 10th day of September, 2017 at Laembesye area within the Serengeti National Park in Tarime District, Mara Region, was found in unlawful possession of weapons to wit; one bush knife and three animals trapping wires without permit and failed to satisfy an authorized officer that the same were intended to b$ used for purposes other than hunting, killing, wounding or capturing of wild animals. Aggrieved by both conviction and sentence, the appellant preferred the present appeal with the following three grounds: 1. That, the alleged ,appellant's plea of guilty was ambiguous as a reminded charge to did neither state whether was explained to him to the language he understood. 2 2. That, the admission of facts by the appellant on the preliminary hearing was not distinguished as to ascertain to which he admitted amongst contents gathered therein. Instead of was generalized contrary to the required standard of law. 3. That, no actual response used by the appellant himself was supplied in court record on the stage of pecuniary hearing, although the referred word "Ni Kweli" on the reminded charge did not give a proper interpretation that he entered a plea of guilty to the charge. 4. That, the decision reached by the trial court was seriously defective as neither conform to the stipulated procedure of law nor supplied any section of the law on his findings as to legalise the decision making, contrary to Criminal Procedure Act,Cap.20 [R.E 2002]. At the hearing the · appellant appeared in person, unrepresented, while Mr. .Mmati, learned State Attorneys represented the respondent. Having not much to say the appellant sprays for this court to find him innocent since he was caught at his place without any fault and he was ordered to remain silent while at the 3 0 police station. The appellant submitted that he was not given right to be heard and he was charged while he was in remand, he was not brought before the court of law. In reply thereof, Mr. Mamti, the learned State Attorney submitted that the court was not properly moved since the Notice of Appeal was filed at Tarime District Court titled " In the District Court" instead of " in the High Court of Tanzania" the learned State Attorney referred the Court to the case of DPP V Samwel Wambura ...... The learned State Attorney argued that even if the Court was properly moved in the court proceedings it shows that the appellant was caught this government trophies but the court failed to convict him. The learned State Attorney referred the court at page 7 of the Judgment, the trial Resident Magistrate stated that I hereby convict you. The conviction entered was contrary to section 312(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, Cap.20 [R.E 2002], which state that the Magistrate while convicting has to state clearly under which section and law. Mr. Mamti argued further that the shortfalls are cured under section 388 of the Criminal Procedure Act, Cap.20 [R.E 2002]. Therefore, the learned State Attorney prays for this court to strike out the appeal or base on the ground of ordering re trial. 4 As rightly stated by the learned State Attorney, that this court was not properly moved to determine this appeal since the Notice of Appeal is defective. The appeal was filed at Tarime District Court instead at the High Court of Tanzania. This means that there is no appeal before this court consequently the application is hereby struck out. It is so ordered. DATED at Dar es Salaam this 19 th day of October, 2018 A.Z Mgeyekwa JUDGE 19.10.2018 Ruling delivered in Court Chambers in the presence of both parties this date 19.10.2018. A.Z Mgeyekwa JUDGE 19.10.2018 5