19881125 TZHC Dar es Salaam2

APl-'~L~ATB JURlbUICTIU~ BlGB C:uU1tT Cb'.lJvl_Li\AL 1-LPl-'£1-l.L N0o 38/08 0rtlGINAL CHiNlNhL CA0~ ~0.1279 UF 1987 01" 'i'h.t.. l.Jli::>'1'1tIC 1r CUU;.d' OF 1LAL1-l. .uL:,'1'.rilCT AT KIVUKOhl B.r.,}\Jltt,; L .i:L J'Jo i,'jJ,.G.ubi-i; }Ji{JvJo 1J o }' o J:' o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o c a o o o o o o o e o o o o ,) J\.J:.1 }'}!;LLANT o (0ri6inal .Prosecutor) versus U~UHli1' 15.c.,i\j.1:,lJlC'r & Ji.NO'fil."'h" •• " ••••••• oi,.r.,,:;PONlJ~NT (Uriginal Accused) JUDGM~N'.f• .fl..Y,.NDQ_1 J: The proceedings in Crimirial Case ho. 1279 of 1987 before MageRR ·, (PHM) of the District Court of llala at Kivukoni, Dar es Salaam, on 24th ~ovember, 1987 were as follows:- 24/11/87 Coram: l. h. M. Magesa, PHM • .PP: SP ivigandila CC: .:icion accused: - .Present Maira for accused: Presento. Pros: - I ask for adjournmE::nt as my witness is not here. Maira: - The accused persons.are inside, and·they h&ve been in -remand prison for quite a long time. They have been in remana prison since 15th September, 1987. And they have no bail. I ask that if the prosecution ~annot proceed todL then they should close their case. Court: - 'J.'his case he1.s been pending here for more than 60 days • .. Prosecution today report thb t their wi tnesf;~:ie,{on ·· 1ec:.ve, nu cannot be found now. It is not known when th~t witness be av&ilable. ~ince the of1ence is not bailable there is ~ need for the prosecution to hasten the hebring of the caEc. ' Uther-wise the accused pe1sons will suffer for nothing~ before they are preved guiltyo. J!'or tht.t reason the prcse-- cution a~e requircid to produce their witnes& today or closa their case. ::, gdo I. Ho Iv1. Mages a 1 P.rtH. 24/11/87 Pros: -- v,e cloLe our cc1.se. ::iection 231 Criminal 1-'rocer ,_r,, hct complied with. 1:>gd. I. H. !•:. Magesa, PHM. 24/11/87 after th1:: proceedint_:;s as shown above, hr. Jv1aira applied for an atlJ~.~+nmen-t to prepare his defence and the trial magistrate ordered th8 hei:l.~ine, to continue on 30th• November, 1987 4t 1i;.OO p.m. On this G.i:lt': r accused persons defended themselv0s anu later the learned magistrate gave ju:..,grnent in the ca1..e·, .;L:t;uitting the accused~ ~he LJirector of Public ~rosc~utions w~s aggrieved by the orde= of the trial m~gistrute in which he airected the ~rosebution to eith~- proctuct their witness or close the case. he hai appealed to ·this ccu: _a 6 c1.inst that order. At the hec.ricg o-!. chj_s aplJea.l, jvir. h.ci.mha. lea:.:·r;-,:;C: btate attorney, repres~nted the Director of eublic Prosecutio~s anJ Mr. ~aira, learned advocate, appea~ed for the respcndente, t~~se who were acquitted in the court below~ The D.P-P. in his petition of ~ppeal has set out t~r00: almoRt interrelated, 1sr0unus on which he challen1::,es the learned magistrate I s order. These are:- 1. That th~ learned magistrate: hbving due regard to the cir- cu~stances of the casd grossly miused his discretion in refusing adjournment cna forcing the prosacution to clnse its case. 2. That the learned.trial magistr&te grossly erred in law in cvnsiaering only the interest of the accused persons and completely disragardirig the interest of the kepublic in refusing adjournment by forcing the proiecution to close jts case its refuaining witnessesn 3. Thc..t the unnecessary refusal to adJourn the caf,e., had occass.ioned miscar:ciage of ju::.tice 1vl-Ll1...:_i:;.F'U1·,.t:; 'l'he .l.iirector of Public 1-'rosecutions prc:.ys ·to this Hono - ur~ble Court th~t the ~c~uitLal by the ~esident ~agisirate be quashed and a retrial of this case be orderedo 11 Before going into the ciae certain ~ore points require to be set c~t in ~rder to put the matter in cle2rer terms. ~he charge facing the respondents in the court below wa.s thctt of robbery q,/_i:,s,. 285 and 286 y'.' ' :, :: 1--enal Code o Un ls_t beptember, 1987 the respondents were admitted to ·b, .:·:. but on 15th ~eptem~er, 1987 the prosecution substituted another cha~~e. of robbery also, and after the comph,inant testified the pros~cutor asked ,that oail be cancelled c~a the ne·\.' charge brought the offence wi ':}·.- ·. the purvi~w of the provisions of_~ectior 148 (5) (e) of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1984 and the le~rned magistrate cancelled bailn ·thu~ no doubt, was because the complainant in .his evidence testified that he 1·.·. ~ sustained injuries in the cause of the alleted robbery. That is the reason, apparently, the learned ma~istrate also says in the proceedirre reproduced above that the offence is not bailible. These are the points which required mention in order to clarify the ·matter. 3 1. c:~in of thE: vie~ tl~-.. t r1e shoulcl 111..,':c, c:.eclineC:'. to do sc, :=.rnc=. sl:.cnld. ~ave i~Icrmed the court that he w~s unable tc cloce th~ ca~e as he h?l mor'" wit Eess es to c.::,ll .. by ac tuully clcis int; the c.,;,se, tiw pros,:,cut or·, .i.n my vii:iv,, rr.u.;:,t be taken to b.;;:v;-e deci·C:,ed to a6:c,.~e ,-;ith the court an.c,. vuJ.unt,::.ri1;« elos,,d '.;he cc:,.,.e~ .Lhe prosE:cutor, aftc::r he_ClOs,;d. the C:-'H,e, cont.inu,~d to par'.:::.c:ipat,~ lL -:i.b·:, ·txial, he c:ros.s-exa(:lined dEJfence 1r1itr,E:s.~_e$ up to the end. · I cannot ,·cc,nstrue, t~1is c:.ttitua.e to be tho.t qf E'. pr•)~e:·utor who hat b0E:;n d_,-~·1:.g~erl its ca.seo I do not find th~t +t, ........... he.-. rner·its e..nC~ I dismiss it entiretyo /' d-<;J-/ .. /? .-/. ··! .{. '; _( - ,;•·;, . !\ l , II / ., \ /' 1J<J ;._(✓ ··1~/ !·}(:t)j•✓-.L(). _ J"Li])liL -- --------- - ------- _... -- _,., Dl-l J.'~ l:J ::,- ~ .h.l.1.b..ri.J11 25th - -----~ ~ovemb~r l~t8;,._ ~ ·,__,.,,_,., l ______