19751023 TZHC Dodoma

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA AT DODONAO APPELLATE JURISDICTION HIGH COURT CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 291 OF 1974 ORIGINAL CRIMINAL CASE NO0 322 of 1974 OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF DODOMA DISTRICT AT DODOMA BEFORE: J. K. BWAHAMA - RESIDENT MAGISTRATE. CHILANGAZI s/o MUZUNGU 0 0 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 APPELLANT versus THE REPUBLIC 00000 0000000 000 RESPONDENT. CHARGE: 1st Count: House breaking and stealing c/s 294(1) and 265 of the i?enal Code 0 2nd Count: Stealing c/s 265 of the Penal Code0 JU D G N E N T MWESIUMO, A. J. The apoellant Chilangazi s/o Muzungu was convicted, on 25/7/74 by Dodoma District Court, of two counts, one of house breaking and secondly of stealing contrary to sections 294(1) and 265 of the Penal Code and was sentenced to three years imprisonment and one year imprisonment respectively and the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved by that decision he now appeals to this court against both conviction and sentence. He did not, at his option appear to argue his appeal. In his memo- rundum of appeal he does not raise anything new0 All he does is to challenge the holdings of the trial magistrate on the evidence before him. My perusal of the record of the trial court and having compared it with the aefence at the trial and submissions of learned state attorney Mr. Kinabo who appeared for the Republic it emerges clearly that this appeal has bo leg to stand on. The challenge is predominantly, if not wholly, on factual issues which, to my mind, were exhaustively dealt with by the trial court and I can trace no ground on which those findings of facts and conclusions drawn therefrom tould be faulted. As rightly pointed out by the learned state attorney the doctrine of recent possessions was correctly applied in the circumstances of the case. In the face of the evidence before the trial court his conviction was inevitable and cannot he disturbed. With regard to the sentence that on the 1st count is the minimum under the provisions f the Minimum Sentences Act No. 1 of 1972 and the one on the 2nd count may apl.ear to be somewhat severe. It is not however, so severe as to be said to error in princil.de and as the two were rightly ordered to run concurrently no interference would be called for by this court on the 2nd count's sentence. Consequently this appeal fails in its entirely and it is accordingly dismissed. Delivered in open court at Dodoma this 23rd day of October, 1975. 4' trt I. E.A. Mwesiumo Ag. Judge. FOR APPELLANT: Absent and unrepresented FOR RESPONDENT(REPUBLI) Mr. Kinabo, State Attorney.