19940706 TZCA Tabora

I,PPELLi~T~; Jr:::IS:DIC'rION ~ ( Tr!boro. ~:e,sistry) (HC) C~ IMIN,',L :.PPE:.-l, N0.23 OF 1993 01clGIN!'.L c,.,:-ynt'.L CASE N0.151 OF 1992 OF THE Defore~. IoPo EITU,S r:sq., ~,ESIDEFT M/i.GIST,:iiTE • ... 00001'>(,.,000000tJ0000000000: APPl~Ll.J~NT ( Ori 1,-~inal Accused) (Orisi:c..o.l Prosecuto~l Shop-0.1rec.kir:,::: :.:r:.c1. steolin::.; c/s 296 (1) of the Pen.::\l Code Ccp.16. YJ,Tl'l'I Jo . .,.1,, -· Defore .ShiY1yL llD.'.". District Court 9 the },epublic indicted D.nd ch,lrged, one CrliG.~LlD.S S/0 0ND0~·.0, :k!r:ce to be cn.llecl the cppellnnt, for the offence of shop-i:·re:'.kin~y, ·-ncl ste.::.linc c/s 296(1) of th8 -Penicl code cn1Jo 16. The trial, whose prte.s tho cpp3lla.nt opened, :,y his pl0.:::: of not cuilty, cul- rnin.-.·te<.: into the .::-.ppell.:--.nt,s convicti.on, one~ ec\rning n sente1,ce of five yenrs ililprisoni:..,t.t; hope full;;· u;:-";;~er the ~1ini!}lUli; Sentences 11ct 1972 - the authority under ·,•1\ich t)·,.e t:cic!l Mo.r;istr.".\te could po.ss such sentence, with- out offen:L.r:c: f,ection 170 (2) of t:10 Crir:,inc·l Procedure ,·.ct 1985, to which the rn2piBtrr•.te r.::;.de !10 re:fere::c,,o Hcwev0r 1 th,., .'.:t::;iell.--.r:.t r-..:;crieved l1ns o.1JjX>-:-led, complo.ininc (1) thut the complGinnnt c'.ic' not ·,_)rovo t~1:-.t tho f;::n 1tfftS his property, o.nd (2) thiJ.t the Frn, wc0 s Dolu:e 9 rt(; ~1c.vinc 1:I-.mtioneC :i:•elux as the

n::ime of the fnn, showing it wo.s :Lis lJro:_::,e:rty, ·.n..'. 1-_:c,t that of the cor'Iplt,inc:nt. The fncts of the cose n.re cleo.r :en.,·: strr.ich:t forw::r.c., -:cnd ar,, ,'..)_s followso On the eveninc of left hi.s stu-Jio into.ct, :i..cb.d nnd s/J.feo On the followini dc: 0 , he foui-1:.l it :.. rolrnn into, some studio equips,nt sco.tt ered nllovr,r, '-,ut on<:: 'I',:--·:. le f1::n 7 ::tE1plifier I three sper.tk&rs, two t.!<Y...;6- compnct Cassettes, ull vnlued nt shso192,600/= stolen therefrom. As ordin~ily ha]>Ft1iu.,, the police hc-.vin,\ cot the report about the snme, they started their invest igntive processes, r.md PW2 Do4778 PC KJ,Yi1FA accompo.nied by Suncu.sunc;u Cor:iE1c.ncler PW3 M1,SANJf', S/0 MAY1Wl,, searched the nppellnnts house, ,md recovered therefro!n, e:. WM-ISON fon, which th0 complninnnt identified to be his property, but sworn counter cl::i.imed :,y the oppellant, supported :)y DW2 DEIUS S/0 JOHN, DW3 J3UTONDO S/0 M1rJi,NDU. 'l'lmo, ~t ~:..,C:ts er.1erge oon1:,pieul"lualy, tho.t the ,.,nly p•Beible 'link 1,etwean the crime cnnr5ed, and the appellant is the recovered f~n. I have used the word link, for 't10.,1-: of o. :,0tter wor,: 9 1:ut what is ir11::ort0.nt here, is w.l1os0 fnn is it, in ;,:,rticul,::tr i:: th,:; fc. cG of n counter clc.ir:1, '.,y the o.ppellnnt o It is fn!:1ili:,r lc.w n•w~ t::-,-._t \·!here pro~)erty is o.lloceclly utolen,

::·ml subse- quently :recovered, 1.1hr:,theT, cou.:c..t2r _cl::.i::ieL: .. y the nccusecl or not, the com- 1--~--, snfely :.-·ncl i:nevito.bly infer, ....,c__ ··- hc:.vins stc.yed v1:.trc ths c::-: :t, for h!elve yer::rs, tmd in court point inc; out Dut ~.i,,rL incIY - t:18 :Jc::;,~ c.:f'l:ell;·nt, hod tole: PW2, tlnt one fu\MISI i'--1.SENGI h.::1d tri.lrnn t:F: 1:::::mG to hi::1 .:f.pr rep.:---:i.ro, when he l,c.c1 no notoriety, for such expertiseo :3ut when PW4 }Liv:ISI S/O :-:SEi'TGI, c:;:we evidence, he deniec1. ever sendins o.Ly f:m to th<c: :::pp,~ll~nt for repnirs, ,:inC::. the appellant, shyedr.way from exnr.,ininc hi1:1 relev:--.rrtl:; 9 on the sc:·.H, c,ny furtherc :i:ietrentin,.:: from the cL·:.h;i ·~}1:'.t, i"t :re'. ;,een :.:rought to hir:1 ~;y PW4 for repcir the nppellant clni@ed it w.::tG hirs, he h.:-.vin[5 1;ouc:ht it fror:1 SELEM!,N S/0 MUSA, :::md thnt it ~ was n Delux m:tke, [".11,l welcled by, one :;:.t:rDODE. find ch.own, th:.::t the fnn was even lnbelled WiJLSON, he ::t~1swerec.l thnt he cnllc::J it Delux, :.:ect·'!iue on the_ receipt, w~,ich he L~icl not tender ;:,.ny wr~y, w...ts written Delux, thus 11 But. I cnll_it_ G Delux_f., n_, ·:.,ecc.u;:;e _-;_t w,.c written r;'o, on the recei1;:,.~,::. 1\.nd .:..:ltho- U[{;h the C'.ppell. n'.: 9 tole. tlw court th;'.t the receipt for the L:n c;ot lost, when the f, .. n w,.:s in the hc:nc~c of so1:1ebo'1y,1.·1ho

h.:.:d ~een entructE:d the [~Oods, DW3 DUTONDO S/O N\rli~I'":;TJ, thi,s ~- l:lc',1it11csc told the _Court, tk,t, the ~,ppdlLmt told hiEJ th.::t thG receipt for the Lm i1~:D nisoinc, 1:1eaninr if c.ny receipt there wc:s, it could not h :ve Leon lost w>ile in the ht:mds of D\{3c Dut while not producing, or tenderin:_'. it, or .s:,yinc w4ere it w:1s, the sD.r.1e DW3, inter itliG sciid, when cross-exc.,Din5 by t11e Court:- 11He <.,,lso s~~ve r,10, the receipt for the fo.n, I c:sked thu.t 12.e ohould · _. r,ive it to :;1e cle,'.1r r;,.y doubts" If DW3, wos e;iven the receipt Ltlthought it is no p.::inuceu, why did he not tender it, nor s::.iy where it w,tGc Lnd ao to the weld.inc of tl1e fc:.n, · DW3 said, "The fo.n h,:d to be weL~ed before u certL:in ur::L, 9 as if it wns welded ot his own initi..itive, cifter it wos brouc;ht to him, but the ..:ppellr:nt so.id he sent it for weldinG himself:,·· The oppelLmt m£~y h:we told DW3, th[?t the 3 :r-ece:i.pt wt1s 1:,1ioe:i.n1.~, l;iut :Lt cnnn111t b@ tnit,aina:, 1.mcl yet 1:io 1s:i.v<:in to h.ir;1 IJW, • You co.nnot hLtve 1='he c:::ke .:tnd eL.:t it. Nor would the seller, knowing th.:tt the fr.m wo.s W,\Hi:iON EKtke 9 1-.iut issu.e n. receipt for Delux. Hc:.vinG civen, the -1,:,rosecution .:.n~: defence evidence, the c.m.1lysis ns o.tove c.',er::1onstrettec.~, it is cl8c.lr in ;·.1y view, .:.s it wc1s to the trial Mogistrn- •• te, thu.t

the ".'.efence is n :}undle of fi.:lse concoctions. While, I c-1;1y r.:dore t ,1c ~ ' o.ppe 11~-.n t , ror .LOr concocl,ion.s, 1·t is in.P:enuity.r.- - -:· . · un..:or · t·11c,1 t f t unc-:ce ,J,.· ,t1wu- ys f;-:,lsehoocls, inv ..ri,.,bly fn:i_l to po.cs, the test of cnreful cm;:,lysis. I DD sntisfied, tlr:,t the cor:r;;l.::.:i::1..,nt with mc.rks shown, c'S did find tl:e trial court, ditl ~)rove U1~:t the f.:.tn WL s :1i::, property teyonc! reo.sonc.~~le doubt .. This stolen fr:n, in pos;-,,.:.ssion of the up;:Dllont on t:1e 19/3/92, ,-i:·.t; .found . six dr,ys after the coriplL:incc::it' s sht.p·, WDG broken into, r·rn.: :.'roperties including this fern stolen therefro::1. In ny view, six do.ys is reo.sonL.,bly recent ;:,· period, in res1:0ct of such 1Jroperty, which hardly ch:::,nges hnnds f::i.st, ::nd is not a.,;,.af.1,.ytrr:.nsfertlble 9 ::.is to attract the Dpplico.tion of the doctrine of recent possescion, which justifies o. conviction, in the abse- nce of c,ny rec.sonnLle -~x:;;ikni::tion, see /\.D/,M §(..Q~IUH{tN VS i·i. (1967) HoCo.£!. 148.. In this co.se, the c.'.efer:ce kwins been discounted, there is no other explnno.t ion, onc.l I rei:i:.:in sotisfie:.i, .1.s wos the tri:::il M:igiL'!tro.t e th;.,t, the conviction we::::; c,s inevit,. ~-1•2, ·:.s it ·~v~:-.s cleserve(l, cmcl the nppenl a.aninst the so.me is hereby dirn:1is;:;el'..a Sir~ce the sentence of five

ye:2rs imprison- ment is the Mininum Sentence, ,.·.s rrescribed by L:·.w - Minirnru Sentence /\ct 1972 - for t:1e v::lu,-' of th<~ ~,ro;:,erty involv8d, no interference with the srune~ .is be le[;o.lly c.llowed. Tl 1.e -::ipp-20.l is dismissed in its entirety., Delivered thi:::; 28-th ,.,•-J.\ ·" -- of ' . ' ."99l -- /'pril ' _,... \ ') l,_ ! _,:. !..' •• ..._ ,,_ _..._/ \..._ .J\...L-,,\,_ \ . \. i. i-J • KNl'ITI -JUDGE P~ties: (1) Mr. i.;cunrJ-tru ,Smiior Sfrte Attorney for the h:epu)Jlic (2) 1\j,;pello.nt: I,bsent 4 · identific,:~.tion Gt .::.11., The tric.l Mo.eiob·otc, wo.o on the evidence entitled to reject the defence, o:·1_.1 o.ccept the prooecution evidence, nnd I too, hereby doo So, or: thE, evidence, ft cryct,2lizec 2.nd boilc Gown, to thio, tho.t the appellnnt .c,nc: othc,ro, did enter the complo.ino.ntn dwelline; houce w:.d invnde PW1 c:nd PW2, c,dr:":ini,stered violence tc PW1 r.md :;,,u-:: Pv12, in ceriouc fenr, before tr.e DD.me run c.wE'.y for their li·.-ec, c.fter which, ::;uch bc.ndit::; depnrted t thievichly with PW1 r.:n( PW2 1 G, z·ec:,ective propertiec., So thnt, not only did the Op}1':::ll:mt imrnedi,.tely ofter enterinc: nncl. before ::;tealine;, uce llild threc,ten· C'.ctui:!l violE::.~ce, 1)ut tco after tl:.e rn:ime, ctole not only the pro- pertiec of PW1, 1)ut n.lco thd of PW2, tho.t meD.nr.~, the violence wnc for ):)Urpo::::ec of ctE:,olir:.'.:s

cee pectios,..?..:..82. of the ~er.Gl Code <]_SQ_e 16, all.U~~ MKJ,Mf. VS. n. (19?0) HoC.D Ncio34G . In my view, the convictionc of the nppe- llo.nt, on nll com:t c\ were ju.st ifiec~., .:1nd they nre hereby upheldo Next io the ce,iter:,ce, ():_· oeven yeo.rc: impriconment on cec.ond count, cmd omicion to p['.OG oentence'I on third count. Firct'I in recpect of centencerJ, in p.::1rticulc'.r on countc (2) nnd (3) it wetc the learned Senior Stc..te i,ttorneyc ;::;ubmio,:;ioL, the.t thic beine: o.rrned robbery thirty yenrc impriconment, inctco.C:: of neven ye:-..rc'I impric.onment, chould. ho.ve been impo- ced, under o.ct NoQ10 of 1989, t:hnt emended the Minimum Sentence Acto 19720 He oail:bb.nod, L1n.t oever. yeo.rc im:-irioonment wo.c illep;nlo Unfortunately, in the circrn:ictc:•:.,.cec of thic cc,ce, I do not agree, with the lecrned Senior State i'.ttorney, c,f cource, with rer;pect o It ic my cubmic:Jion, that where · you h.~vei a .sentence enhenced, by way of .statutory nmendment, for .sente- ncinf purpo.sea, the centencinf Mae;iGtr::i.te mu.ct be. cc:.reful to r.ote; (1) the date of comnencement of cuch .statutory amendment; (2) · hi:: ctntutory nente- ncine: juricdict icn; (3) the dc.te of cocrniGaion of the offence,; and ( 4) th8 ;:;tnte oi' oei,ter..ce, ..1hen the offence wetc committed. Ther.:;e arena in my view, co.rr:y cicrsificc:r,ce, becc.u:::ie if c_ny i;::i, or

o.11 of them, nre ·.t1·:,~1.1t,re- oced, the. cei:te:·_ce reculto.nt th0reoy v1ould be invalidated .. In thio c.:ice, the offe,1ce w.:ic committed, on the 30/10/1988, while the conviction tmcl centence ,-,ere ret:ictered on the 23/1/1990. The Minimum Sentencec Act~ 1972, wo.c a.mended by i~ct Noo10/1989, which cc,me into uc;.., operdion on 21/5/1989~ c:;.fter the commfomion of thic offence, but before the conviction of the nppellnnt; u.sherinc- in, the statutory minimum oente- nce of thirty yearc, for nrmed robbery. The iccue provoked, by the Senior State l1.ttorney 1 r, Gubmiccion; ic whether, the appellant fallc under the juricdiction of i.ct o No., 10/1989, - men"1inc: thirty yearc impriconment, cimply becau;::;e, the caid. nppelln.nt_.wn.::;. convicted o.fter lkt.No.-10/1989, came tinto operntion.. The nnGwer, ic obviouoly in the nec;ntive, and I get nuch cnurac;e ."-5 to any co, from the oupreme lQw of the Lnnd - The Union Conotuttion, o.o umen(ed from time to time· - Section 13(~) ( c). vJhich provide::; thu1J:- Section 13(6)(c):- ni rnCl!'Ufuku b·m mtu kuo.dhibiwa kwo. onbabu ye. kitendo chochote nmbncho nlipokitendo. !l.,·.kilrnwo. ni l;:nou chini yo cherin, no. pin k1.m;;1b.:t ni mnrufuh.7.l kwo. c,clhabu -kutolewn o.mbnyo r:ci kubw.:t h.llik(?_~~ iliyokuwep_o_~~nti kooc1. li;-:~.bhuoi~~ilipot endw<;,.!.. The unc.erL.ninr nbove L; cc::ifer.:::.ec1ly mine, but more

iraportant, io tne inter ;.1.lfr. th;~.t, effect th--:t i•:1ter ,:lio., t):le cubr.;cct ion ;:,r1e9cri9ea, .. ·. : upon criminal w..:ich is cor:.vict:i.on, the in;:io:_;iticm of Gel1ter1ce,/~;renter 0 -,,. harcher, than wc..r:. the - -· - sh~ll not be ,:.llowed. cente"1ce; ;::t thr:., tii:K: the relev::mt C?ffei1ce, wo.c.: ~ornmittedel In other_. \lJ_ordc, it ir: 1111 cc,:1ctc1 tut ion,.l iE tr,i:..', cotmtry, to impooe, c> hen vier, or ::;ever er center.ce, tl1::.11 the centG:.:.ce_, th~t we.::; lesict:i.m:::te, o.t the til!1e of the conir11iocioL c:~· tLe chc:.r,:'ed. offe1:cec In thic co.ce, cince, when the o.ppello.nt committed t:-.-:, charrec1 ,.:,ffe;.1ce, wo.c upon conviction liable to impriconment up to eicht yet:..r" im~?ri:::;0nr:1ent, u:,der the Minimum Sentencec 1\ct. 1972, centei1c,, he dirJ. " J'he cc-;__ rc.e cue,sected by the leo.rned Senior Stnte i,tto- rr:ey, would Jywe 1-;eGn_ lec,~11y.1 n.nd contitutuon.ally wrone. ecriisr tri:Jl Mo.e;iGtrate omitted to pa::;c centence on t:ic thirc'. CN1.nt, .::iut, with ::>'.'Gcpect, it ir: f--:::mili:-.r 11:::w, that where an 1:.1.cc,::coc: ic co11vict0d o? n,)re th.m sne '.)ffence, each count/offence, on which ti:;c., o.cc'.1.::-:ed ic convicted; ~::foll eo_ch h:we itc own oentence o.sci['1ed, bnt ordci' L:~0rr, -~ .' r;_u: c-;:_currently, or concecutively, in term::; of /Jection 168(2) of t~1e Crir.;i1:.'.'.l_ Procedure l.ctc 1985, but o.lco ::mbject to the - provicir.,:c:: cf ::;u'...--:::ccticn\· of the G,~;ne co.id nectiono I therefore equally irrrpor.;e :'.:'.even y'.J,.r~, i1:1pri.-:0T1. .msmt o::i L:e 3rd count, but order the o:::.me to . ser1t e~1ceG o , 'I'he D.ppecl ic therefore di.smicoed in itc e1-:-.tiretyo Delivered ,thfo 221.d dc-y uf July, ~994. :C.H. K/.TITI _:ll!DGE 6/7/199,\