19881210 TZHC Mwanza

IiJ T~·is ;.1IGH CO~HT O? TAiT'.:.:;AlJIA AT MJ,:~NZ.h. ~~:IGH COillT c:;nIH:iTAL L.?~ 3:.'.~"S..., ITO• 1 5.5 OF 1988 Original Criminal Case No, 61 of 1988 of t~e ~ict~ict Court of' I1usoma District at Viusoma B,:1f'or0 g- J.ugazia ~tsq., R0sident I'llagistrate) ::n:;:ncK LII!iL I-f"JLIIJGA • o e o • • • • • • • , • 1 • • • • • • • • • ♦ • • • • • • Versus JU.0GMZNT The appellant D~~J.ICK LII1A. IWLLil-TGi.. was charged i:-ri th two .cot-:.,.7.ts, namely uttering a :false doc·,_.._ment c/s 3L1.2 ?C and attempting to obtain money by false pretences o/s 330 and J82 P.c. He denied both counts o However at the end o:f t:1.e day he :fou..7.d hi,·,1uel:f convicted as c:1.arged a::id se:.-::.tenc0d to J yea:cs and 7 years impriSOi"llnent resp~ctivelyo Se;;.te.;.1.ces t-rnre ordered to run concurrently. He is now appealing against both convictions and sentenceso It was_ the ~::>rosecution case ti1.a t the appellant was operating a current accou..\'lt at t:J.e lTa-cion.al :aa~u of' Com.nerce lfolendo 3ranch within 1".lu.Goma Townshipe Ii.ts aacou.nt nur:1ber On 26th December 1987 w:.1.ile on duty ?~'Tl Gir-'.~[t~-U~ a/o KUZ~HG-A • a 3anl,;:. clerk was ap_;,roach(;)d by ti.1.e a~:.:;,)0112.nt who had a cheque worth 2000/= she processed it. In oo doing ohe discovered tha-t on his card tt10re was an amou..11. t 686,590/= alleged to have been ~aid ·in on In checking ti1.e ban.le procesoes

she discovered thut there were some r.iajor irregt:i.lai:i ties :from the normal banking procedure. The ::.atter uas re:c0r::ced to high aut:'lori ty '\·1he1.~e i t was discovered t~:1.at tl1.e amount of shs. 686,590/= alleged to have been paid in hard cash was in actual f'act paid in by a cheque .•. 'Further investigation revealed. tl f,'~-t. t •nlt •• • . -... • .-· • ~ r •• • c1.1eque 1-r.nicb. oelonged to a H1. . 1:'J};.C...,;...( 1.L.,:O~--O o:i: Z.:igoma " • • l revealed haV.· be,m. re;?orted stolen on 2n.9.87. 3crut.:in~· of' ~he chequeL that it had been e.ndorsed paya0le to I1usoma :.)iocese. The pay-in-slip showed the amouD.t to be in caoI:1 to be credited to acCOU!."1.t Ho 41.:;u 5067 in the name ot: :.)2.::uc:( LILA LUI,LIHGA3 Fur·cher inves tiga ti 011. by the Bank o:fficials thz:-eu ,nuch suspecion upon a bank clerk in the Waste :Jepartme:-.1t in the na;:}e o:f F.RZ:rtRICK IEC:.:u ( 2nd accused at t:1.e trial). I1ov:0v0r ..t~1ey were ••...... "/2. 2 - of' the opinion that clerk might probably :not have clone t · - -ln"'" so W:t· t·.nou-_C011..!.?,1v- 0 •-11· , t'r·:1. t'.1.e - acco"~"'+. _11.olr~,...,r, ~.1.v '-'-'-' :;1::-.•,·•.10lyl -- tl.,e .... them and· c~1.arg0tj. them before the co-cl.rte In his def'01.1.ce the ap::_::>ellant d0:1ied to have known a:nyt~.1.ing . ~ . .. . made th_e pay-in-slip nor any doc._,m1ent connected Hi th t!1.G crediting .. of' that

araou:1t 011. his account• H0 wondered a.s. to why ti1.e bank off'ic:Lal.s credited to his accov..:1t a..'1.d r:10reover t~1.0 pay-i.n-sl.ip ::;~1.ow~Cl: the name of' :)3::n,::;:~. Lii:.i-.. MI.rLLIHGA and not hie. _i·Ie denied t~ :l;-ave_ gone to t>.at bc,nlc on 2L~. 12.86. Ee denied -to h.2..ve k~-iown anyt:::dng a·oout t;~"?.0 c:;.--e'd.i ti.:.1.g to his account until when it was brought to i.1.is attention in con.."'1.ection with t~1.i0 ca0e. T~1.is was so because he said he l-:1ad. not asked for hi.s . lulla.nc--e on .. 26.. 12....8.l__a.s _,he.--ha.cl··. gone t~~ere with a ..ci'rnque ..o-'£ 11 ,ob;.o/ = and ca::;ned on it only si.-:1s. 2000/ =• In hiG :'!lemorandum of appeal he reR,ea -. ted more . as le·ss the --~, .• During the hearing of' the ai:>:,cal tl:.-3 loarn04 ?rinqipal the - conviction . . . on the --- ,. cheque to that bank. Secondly it ,-ra8 :not l:nown as to ·how that cheque fou.,."1.0. its way .into _tl-_i.e a:_:>~:>81_18,-1.1.t' s accou....'1.t becaas0 it ."i':/:· . .:: was payabie ·to E:.woma _:Jiocese, the.re by the bru"ll~ officials themsGlves ei ti1.o:i.... deliberately or neglig0ntl.y, Thirdly the creca ting on th.e appellcant I s account was done by the Bank o1:ficials themsei'ves in th.0 --raste :Jei:x;rtpent ~here the a~pellant had no access. Fourthly the a:_:>pellant was operating nis accoun.t by his na;ne the name of ~~~J.IC:: LII-1A l{ULLINGA. '

. . 'I'he l0a:..;.1.ed :..?rincipal State Attorney wondered as to how it was O'.r'..e_d.i ted to i.--iis accouz1t. _Fifthly the bank officials wi:10 were called as uitne;,sed denied to have seen the appellant at the ba::.1.k on 24. 12. f37 o ~'ii th res poet I entirely agree vri th tl:.e lea_rned '\rincipal 3ta. te A tto=-.:l.ey. In.deed there is no 0vid0nc0 tI.12.. t it was the ap;_:>ellant w~1.o took tn?,.t cheque to that banl{. Secondly thcl~e is no evidence t::?..at i t ~1as ti1e a~:;::>Gllant who caused i t to be · cr·edi te,d to· hin accol.l..!.-it in any uay.. rte not the one who filled · wasL the pay-i11.-olip. . The pay-in-.sl~p i tGelf' ~-ras 11,0-t (,Jr-i tten in -the appellan·b '. G na:ne.. 'I'he a.p:::)0lla.:::·t Ha.s opera ting his 'i'he pay-in-slip O•eoo•••/J .. .- .... ,. . 3 - ·was wri. tt-e.n:.:..i.n the name Of' ohl.y a blili.ci. bank cl0rk could miG ta~:e o.\.:,e 'f:or -t::G ot:1Gr.~ l Further more the c:1eque i tsel:f w2..s }.)CLya'ole to I~:.rno:::a :Jio~es · and Obviously the w~1.ole tI1.ing uc.G done by the ba;:1.k off2.cialo. either•:deliberately o':r t::::.ro:.1&i'l groGs ' .... .' n-\.. ' • ,.',. ' . 1ne appellants account is all0e;ed · to ho..v0 ::>00~· cred:i. ted 0 ~i Ifobody told the .cou:;."t t:1a t ,: ':· ... ap:9ellant was seen ctt. the ba;:ik doing any ba1'lk tl":2:.::::i.saction in connectio.::1 with his account. The ne:ct day· i:raa

Cbristmas • On the 26th December 1987 nobody told tb.e com... -t t:'22:. t ·ti1.e appellant aoked f'or his balance and was s~1ot-m,· T::1ua t:1.erc u2.s no opportuni t ) whereby the a~?pella--11.t would have det,ect0d tne Ul1.UG'...lal amow.1.t ' added to his accou.J1t .• , As properly stated by ti1.e 1.earned trial Resident 11.iagiztra te current account deposits 8.1"~./-'lOt necessarily made by the account holder. Thus any ::m.liciouc per::;on can ... make false dei)oDi t to yo-µr a.c.~_ou:qt w:s:thout your knowledge or j ! •. •·~: 1:_•~~ ~;-• ; {,~ '/~. •~: \ •\ .r • . • conoent. You can only det0ct··the 1so::,1e.--q.y, a.s~dng ror .anc,i being given your bo.lanc0,Accouats Cards are lrnp•t by t:-ie bank whcr0by have little access if any. The learned. trial i10sid311.t 11agi::;tl..,C!.te Gtat6d'·tha·t tl'lere was no possib:ili fy ~or the second accuoed 'to ,-ri thdrn.w f'rom the account with.out involving ti1.e apIJulla:-it and·· therG{o::-e the a:i,:)pellant ::-.1ust :1ave beon involved. T:.:.ia could 1)e true but by the tirae t:1is :fraud came to li_g:'lt :;,1.0.ae ]:;,ad tried .to withdraw ;· that amou...'1.t or thereap~ut :from tb:a t acco.u.nt.•· Cour-ti::f' cannot convict nuspocts on mere supposition or sucpeciou ~owever strong such suapecion may be. It is u1.Jon tl1.e above mentioned ree.oons t::.2.·t _ ag:.:-0e with the l0c:.."ned Pri!l:cipal State Attorney th.at the

evidence adduced was not st!'o.ag 0110.ugh to secure a co:.1viction UL.Jo:.1 the appellant I s neck. In view o:f t~:do I quash both co:1victions and 00t aside. the sontonces impo3ed thereat. The a1)pellant is to be rel00.sed f:i."0:::l custod.y f'orthwith ,. unless lawfully held in con.n.ectio.11 1,rith another cl-12.rg~ 0~ charged, Deli v0red this 10th day of :Jec6mbcn." 1938 in tl:..e :-;>resG11c0 of' Hr, Lyimo - ?rincipal 3ta te A ttorn':y for -:the :.:"?.e::_)ublic. Cl /1 ' J-~\~ .,: /\.__,;, . s.N. YJ:,.:rr. PRM (Ext Juris) GN 323/35 & 121/88