19931108 TZCA Arusha9

t rn THE crnnT OF AFT.EAL OF TAN:,:ANIA AT .N.WSIIA ICTSAiJGA.,. J .A~J.. i.1Al-iADIUiJ·JI, J .A., And_ LUDUVA, y.A.) C3Jl{WAL APPEAL NO. 127 OF 1993 TI-IE DLlECTOJ. OF PUDLIC ElOSECU'rJ:01Y3 • • • 'AFPELIJ1.J1ff 1. S/i.DINB U!YASI TE.SHA ) • ?IBSPONDENT-3 2. RAPHAEL J. TTIBI-IA )• (Appeal from t.he acquittal by the l-Lig:1 Court of Tanzania at A.rusha) · (Nchalla.. J.) d.ated. the hth day of November_ 1992 :in Cr:i.Jninal Sessions· Case l'lo •.'.m_9f 1991 JUDG!,:iEi'-Jt OF THE COtnT :1M-1A1XIANI. __J .A •..1 The High Court o.f Tanzania at .Arusha (NCIIALLA 1 J.):. on 4th November; 1992_, made a rul:ing t:1at the two respond.ents 1 Sabinis Inyasi Tesha antl Raphael Jacob Teslla, had no case to anSiver, Thus they were acquitted •f the cl1arGe of mansJ.auc;liter c/s 195 of the Penal Code. That :culin(; ar;grieved the J.epublic and so the Director of Public Prosecutions has come up uith th:i.s appealo At tl1e I1ea1·ing f.u•. Mono, the learned- f-'rjncipal State Attr>rney: appea;~ed on belwJ_f of the appellant 11epubLLc: wllile r.Ir. l·1arwna; lea1·ne0. cow1sel 7 represented both respondents, just as he hacl cione at the trial. Mono filed three grounds of appeal, F:isst he attackecl the refusal of the learned trial Juclge to achnit as evidence the extra-judicial ... /2 2 statements of both re3ponclcnts and the .cautioned state;;1ent of tlle first re3ponclent. Second 1'11·, licno saicl ti·,at HC:iALLA, J. e1·recl .-J!-1en he refused the to r.,:ive the "J ,., - • r::.:;ht to re;:-Jly tt' the objections of Hr. l'fa.ruma to • .., i:) e.1- • .. /. ,{. the procluct:i.on of the cautioned· state:;1ont of t:10 first respondent. Lastly_ it was su:);·,,:i..tte,l tl,at the rulin[; of no prima facie case· was lfl"Ong since the evidence of the remaining prosecut:Lon witness (P.H.1) uas sufficient to rn2..ke out a case for the res1)ondents to answer. In the course of hearj.ng the appeal, .four fundamentaJ. omissions vi vid.l.y stood out,, and lir. l-iarrn,1a Has 've~·y quick to aclrnit them Hhen he came to acldress U:.e Com·t. :-re intend to dispose of t'.1.i.s appeal on those four errors. p-;.....1•st, the recode ic patently clear that the tr:i.al uithin a trial that was conducted \-las incomplete and yet the lea1·ne~l tr:i.al Judge made a rul:i.n2; on j_t. Seconc\ the ;).P.r-. 1:as den:i.ed his :;_•j-i;lit of reply after the defence macle it3 ob:}ection. Tl1ircL a secant~ trial 1,-rlthin a trial ua3 not held Hhile it ought to have been conclucted. Lastly. the :J.P. P. ar~a:inst tl1e re.~ect:3.on of the cautionecl statement o.f the .first respond.ent6 Both respondents recorded eztra-,jucl.:-.cj_al stater,1ents before a Justice Tl ' "eace o.ft· ,1e (;:1i , fT-.. ,J0) • :-Jhen these statements ,·1ere alJout to ;Je tendered as e:cl1ibits, l:!r. i-J.3.rurna objected. So a 'trial Hit:uJ1 a trial uas held. r ,U .3 becar.1e the fil'st ;_Ji·osecution Hitness in the trial w~_thin a trial. In fact P, t( .3 uas tl·,e only 11itness. After e:carninat::.on in - chief: cross-e:::ar.1:i.nat:Lon am~ re-e;~arn:i.112.tion the lea.rne(l tr:i.al. Judr;e v1ent on to 3 make his ru1::.11e; rejectj.n,z ooth statements. Ifoat the Justice of the Peace depooed t:as not controverted. even 1J.Y the :responf~ents. Ue ~iust wonder on 11,w.t othei· ev:i.dence tl:i_c:. the learned ~Tucl,:;<=i reject that of the Ju::;tice of the r:'eace,' Ti1.:i.s :i.s wl1y i-,e say tll2.t the trial Nithin a trial The f:'..1·st respondent a.lso liac.i. reco::CJ.ed a cautioned. statement before P .II ,h and ,;'.1en that Hao about to be tenderec1 1 the c~efence ob;;ected allegin~ that sections 53 to 58 c,f the CdJJJinal FToceclure Act 1 1985 bad. not been complied w:i.th. After. that add:·ess by iir, ilaruma, the lea...-ned Jut;.ge r.1ade h:i.s ruli.J1c i'P.ject:ing the cautionoc~ stater:1ent for failure to comply uith the mand.ato:;:y p;~ovisions of the C:d.r.1inal Procedure Act. r-u·. l1ono is recorclecl to have said: "I have not been gi:.ren np:::,o:rtun:i.ty to reply to the 0b;jcct~..r::,n by my learned friend. on the admissibility of the state1;1ent wl·Li.cll P ,TI,/+ recorc'i.ed from 1st accusect For that reason I apply to oppeaJ. aga:inst the ru.JJ.11c, Tile ;_)r0cee·,::.ngs be sta.yec1., 11 Tllus r,;r. Eono reg;i.stered tuo points. First he po:1.ntecl out that he was appeal anct so askecl for the p::.'f'\Cee<.1.::.ngs to be stayed. IIe sl 1 all deal ,·1ith the first l)":i.nt f:i.rst. Uitl1 re::;pectr the learnec', Judge ~n·e,L It is ll card:iJ1nl principle of nDtin·al _:iu::;t:1.ce that a party slloulcl not be concler,med w1hear<.l. In the issue of objectjJ1g to the admission of the cautioned statei;1ent 1 tal.:J.es ue:;:e tm·ned; Mr. !faJ."l.una Nas 1 the )rosecutor accus:i.ni::; 1-:Ir. Bono of procluc~.n~; a clocument ul1:i.ch had been ilegaJ.ly obtained, f'lr. Mono had to defenf the '.Jepu;Jlic aGainst tlmt 3 make his rul::_ne; rejectin;; both statements. lfoat tlle Justice of the Peace depo::;ec1. uas not controvertec1. even ]Jy the resporn~ents~ Ue just wonder on Hilclt other ev:i_dence tUc, the learned LTucl.Ge reject that of the Justice of the ?eace,' T;1is :i_s wl1y ue say tlla.t the trial Nithin a trial The Erst respondent also l!ac.:. reco'-·cleo. a cautioned. statement before P.11,l. aml ;;'.1en that Ha::: about to be tendered: the o.efence ob;;ected allegin.z that sections 53 to 58 of the CdJJri.nal Froceclure Act 1 1985 l1ncl not been complied w:Lth. After_ that adct.·ess by ilr, i·Ja1·trn1a 1 the lea..-ned Jucl;;e made bis 1-ul1J.1G l'P.jecting the cautionec~ stater:1ent for failure to comply 1-Ji-Lll the manclatm·y p;~ovisions of the Cr:u.1inal Procedure Act. r-h·. Mono is recorc:_ecl to have said: "I have not been gi•ren ()p:::iortun:i.ty to rei,ly to the 0o;jcct~.-on by my learned friend. on the admissibility of the state1,1ent wl"Li_cl1 P ,TI,/+ recorcted from 1st accused. For that reason I apply to appeal against the ruli.nc;, 1'lle l)r0cee· :.:-.n0 s be sta,yec1.," Thus r,Jr, Viono reg:i.stereci tuo po:.i.nts. F:i.rst he po:i_ntecJ. out that he was ay,peal anc~ so askec1. for the p1·,..,ceec.1.::.ngs to be stayed. He sl1all deal ciith the f:i..rst :;:i"int f:i..rst, liith respectr the learned Juc1.c;e ~1T8(.c, It is n cardinal principle of natu;~al just5_ce that a party slloultl not be contler,med unhear<.l. In tho issue of objectjJ1g to the admission of the cautioned statement, tables we:;:e tm:ned; Mr. lfa.i•uma was the )rosecutor accus:i..J.1t; 1l-:Ir. Uono of procluc:;.n~; a document i-:11:i_ch had been ilegaJ..ly obtained. I-Jr, Mono hac1. to defen{ the :tepu~Jlic ai:;ainst tl1at 4 wa;,_ allegation but .;_3 not ~~-ven opportunit;/. Lord. 1·/right had t!1is to say in General Nedi.cal Council _v. ~aclonan [1943] A.C. 627 at 641+~ 11 If principles of natural justice are violated in res:;_Ject of any decision: it is indeed immaterial whet~1er tlie sarne decision t·rould have been arrived at i,"1 the absence of t:~e d.eparture from t:1e essential principles 0f justice. That <.tecis:Lon must be clecla;_•ec, to be no decision, 11 That tias quoted t-1itll appr')val by the Court of Appeal for Eastern Africa in l·fyprilitn_ Cassiano De Souza v. Chairman_ and_Mer,1bers of the Tanr;;a. J'm-m Councn_[1961] E,A, 377 at 388. Ue think it is a sound principle, ll0Neve1· _. in the present case, "in the absence of the departm·e 11 froi,l that rule of natU1.·al ;justice, namely the :;_•i.:;ht to be heard, the learn~d Judge wc;;.ild not havA a.1·rivec\ at tbe same decis~_on, Hore lDcoly 11c Hl"luld . \ have 01·cle1·ecl a trfal uitl:in a trial Hhic:1 is the test a statement has t'"" pa5S before it is aclmitted as evidence. ' So the de:;:iarture here is even mm.·e offensive. T'.~is is the third fundarnental error: the failu::.·e tA conduct a second trial wit}un a trial, 'I'o go bacl: to the seconc, p,.-1int of l-t.·. 1-!ono; that is, lu.s rec1uest for stayin~ the p:coceed.5.n~s so that h1;, coul0. appealr the learned Judge responded. t1ith tl:e foll0t-1jJ1g order: 11 .As the rulin;:; is on an interlocutm·y point I rule out tiie application tc- stay the proceediness. I 01... der accordingly. 11 Vir. Mono cori1plie( in the only Hay open t-, :1in1: 11 111 that case my lord, I close the Prosecution case. 11 That: of cou:;_•se., paveci the vay for the ruline of no case to answer t-1!1ich c;ave bil·t:1 to tl1is appeal. . .. /5 5 At the apj_)eal i-ir. ifono submitted that t!1e learned Jud[;e e:crec~ in his opinion tliat an intei·locutnry o:..·J.er in c;,•iI,1inal p;,•oceedj_nr;s is not appellable by the J,P,F. He relied 0;1 our decision in iUois_ I,ula_ and Princii)al State Attorney said that the J,P.F. L&s a :c:Lglrt of appeal e,;en ac;ainst sucl1 orc:e~·s. liith respect, tl1at is so, In Alois ICula i•,e were just interpretil1[; t:1e {)l'ovlsions of 3, 6( 2) of tl1e AppeUate Jurisdiction Act 7 1979 ,1lucl1 says; ( 2) :·n1ei•e the Ji:;,·ecto:..· of Public 2rosecut:i.ons is 11 dissatisfied uith any acquittal 1 sentence 01· order mac~e n1· j_,asseC: by tl:e EiGh Com·t or by a subordinate court e;:erc:i.s'.ill/~ e::tencled poi-ters he EJay a~)l)(:>al to the Court of ·Appeal against the acCj_uittal,. sentence o:r Oi'der: as the case may be I on an~r [9'.'0Und of apyieal, 11 aere the D,l' ,:.·, wanted to ar,peal against tl1e Oi·der of the J.ea;.·necl Judge in re~ect:,.11 6 tile CJ.utj_onecl statement of the fil· st i'esponder,t, That order was appeallable by the ::, ,F, P. It :i.s only the accused )er son uhri does not have a 1·:i.:::;ht 0f ff[Y:,'leal acaj.nst an interJocuto1·y order in c;.•ir,1inal procecdin;::;s. That :i.s u;·!Ll.t ue clecided in Alois. Fulfa. The learned JuclJe ce1·ta~~nl;y had his reasons: ric;i,tly _m· 1:r.rongly, in conducU.ng t:1e proceec:.5.n~~s in the 11ay he 0.icl 1 ho~1ever 1 the four errors pointe,:. out are uneo!ilfortably gl::u·in;:;, Ju:jtice r.mot be seen to be done both to tl1e accuse6. pe;,·son as weJJ. as to the l)rosecutj_on, I·le;.•e it cannot be said to have '.)oon so on the •Jart of, tlle :;1e~1ublic. /l.s I-ir. Mono i,rayed the only rernecl;:r is to dj_rect a nei'I trial, 'I'he proceedin;;:;s are (_:Uasl1e0. ancl a retr:Lal b, conducte,.l by ai1other Juclee, It is so ordcreu, ... /6 ·' . 6 The appeal is allowed. DATEJ at .A:-:.USIIA this 8tl1 day of !Joveml)Ol' 7 . 1993. _.. . ::i.·, ·iL ... ICTE,.lU·iGA A. 3, L. ;.;Ji.Llf.J::./'.lIT ~TU,3'.i':i:CE Of AffE!->.I, I certi.f<J that this :i.a a true copy of the o:;.'icinal. E. J, l·TYAf'!.ASAGA~t DEFU1'Y :rn:-LSTT.:.A1