director of public prosecutions vs wilfred mulanga marealle 1986 tzca 34 21 july 1986

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OP TAN ZAN IA AT ARU SHa CORAM: MUSTAFA, J , A .; MAKAME, J . A . And OMAR, J . A . CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 71 OF 1 9 8 5 THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS. . .APPELLANT VERSUS WILFRED MULANC-A MAREALLE.................................. RESPONDENT ( A p p e a l fro m t h e c o n v i c t i o n o f t h e High Court o f T a n z a n i a a t ii ru sh a) ( Chua, J . ) d a t e d t h e 2nd day o f A u g u s t , 1985 in Cri m i n aJ App e a l No, 105 o f 1984 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT MUSTAFA, J . A . : A c r i m i n a l c a s e was f i l e d against W ilfre d M arealle S' in the D i s t r i c t Court o f M o s h i . He was c h a r g e d w i t h crim in al tresp a ss c o n t r a r y to section 299 ( l ) (a) of t h e P e n a l C ode , w i t h m a l i c i o u s damage t o p r o p e r t y co n tra ry to section 326 ( l ) o f t h e P e n a l C^de and with f a i l i n g to c o m p ly w i t h a l a w f u l o r d e r c o n t r a r y to s e c t i o n 124 o f t h e P e n a l Code. He was s e n t e n c e d on t h e t r e s p a s s count to a fine of S hs . 2 ,0 0 0 /- or C) months im prisonment in d e f a u l t on t h e m a l i c i o u s damage c o u n t t o a fine of Shs„ 1 , 0 0 0 / - o r 6 months im prisonm ent in d e f a u l t and on t h e n o n - c o m p l i a n c e count tn a 12 month sentence o f im p r i s o n m e n t suspended f o r 9 m on t h s . W ilfre d M arealle appealed to t h e Hi gh Court w h ic h a l l o w e d h i s a p p e a l and qu ashed h i s con viction s and s e t aside the s e n t e n c e s . The D i r e o t o r o f P u b l i c P rosecu tion s is a p p e a l in g a g a i n s t the said a c q u i t t a l s . /2 . - 2 - The c a s e a r o s e i n t h i s manner. Edward David M arealle, a rela tive o f W ilfred M arealle, had be en in p o s s e s s io n o f a p ie o e o f disp u ted land s in c e 1962. Edward was c o n f i r m e d by t h e H^gh Cour t as owner o f the s a i d l a n d a r i s i n g fro m a c i v i l case concerning its ownership. In O c t o b e r , 1980 Edward M a r e a l l e r s moth er d i e d . S h o r t l y t h e r e a f t e r t h e r e was a m e e t i n g o f a l l t h e rela tiv es., It was a l l e g e d by W i l f r e d M a r e a l l e t h a t in that m e e t i n g Edward M a r e a l l e had a g r e e d t o donate, g ift or tran sfer a piece c f the land in h i s p o s s e s s io n s i n c e 1 9 r ?- t o a rela tive, one A k i e l i . Edward had o r i g i n a l l y obtained from h i s f a t h e r the land in q u e s tio n , and i t a p p e a r e d t h a t A k i e l i had had no s h a r e o f any la nd, The c l a n members i n t h a t m e e t i n g had u r g e d Edward t o l e t A k i e l i ha ve a p i e c e * f land to bu ild A k i e l i 's house. T he r e i s a s e r i o u s d is p u t e as to what a c t u a l l y ha p p en ed a t t ha t - m e e t i n g . Edward M arealle d e n i e d t h a t he had a g r e e d t » anything* W i l f r e d M a r e a l l e a l l e g e d t h a t Edward had a g r e e d t o le t A k i e l i have a p i e c e o f lan d. Some o t h e r w i t n e s s e s D . W . l , ' D.W.2 and P . W . 3 a g r e e d w i t h W i l f r e d . However the Chairman o f t h e m eeting, a w itness c a lle d by t h e High Court, s t a t e d t h a t Edward had a g r e e d on c e r t a i n con dition s, which how ever were n e t c o m p l i e d w it h o A copy o f m inutes, a l l e g e d l y taken s h o r t l y a f t e r the c l a n m e e t i n g was p u t i n a s an e x h i b i t by W i l f r e d M arealle„ The m i n u t e s were n o t confirm ed nor signed b y Edward n o r b y t h e Chairman, bu t were s i g n e d by some w i t n e s s e s who t e s t i f i e d at th e t r i a l . C l e a r l y the c o p y o f m i n u t e s was o n l y a d m i s s i b l e to show t h a t p o s s i b l y a m e e t i n g had t a k e n Diace, b u t n o t o f what had t r a n s p i r e d a t t h e m e e ti n g ;. As e v i d e n c e t h e copy of m i n u t e s was w o r t h l e s s . ............ . V 3 , ! Th^'DlB'tr-r^fc-'Tffagxstrate was n o t im pressed by the ‘tn.lmxtes and he h e l d t h a t Edward M a r e a l l e had n o t d i v e s t e d h i m s e l f o f the p o s s e s s io n o r ownership o f the land in q u e s tio n . He was o f t h e v i e w t h a t W ilfred M arealle, knowing the f a c t s , had d e l i b e r a t e l y t r e s p a s s e d on t h e l a n d and b a i l t a house t h e r e o n , in ord e r t o a n n o y Edward„ He c o n v i c t e d W i l f r e d as c h a r g e d . The High Court on a p p e a l u n f o r t u n a t e l y went i n t o the q u e s tio n o f ownership o f the p i e c e o f land, and a t one p o i n t , a d v i s e d Edward t o "go t o o c i v i l court i n c a s e he f i n d s it i n e x p e d i e n t t c ha ve t h e m a t t e r settled w ith in the f a m i l y ” . T her e can be no q u e s t i o n that Edward i s t h e owner o f and was l a w f u l l y i n p o s s e s s i o n o f the land in q u e s t io n , since h is t i t l e t h e r e t o had b e e n c o n f i r m e d by t h e High C o u r t , whose d e c i s i o n r e m a i n s un ch allenged. The f i r s t ap pellate j u d g e seemed t o h a v e he l fl t h a t Edward M a r e a l l e h a d , at the c la n m eeting, divested h im s e lf o f the p ia c e o f land in fa v o u r o f A k i e l i , W ilfrei M a r e a l l e was a c t i n g on b e h a l f o f A k i e l i , and had t h e r i g h t to e n t e r up^n t h e l a n d and b u i l d on i t . W ilfred M arealle uprooted some p l a n t s i n o r d e r t o b u i l d and was w i t h i n h i s rig h ts in d o in g s o . The f i r s t ap pellate judge a p p a r e n t ly relied on t h e c o p y o f m in u t e s e x h i b i t e d at the tria3. as evidence to esta blish t h a t t h e l a n d i n q u e s t i o n had p a s s e # f r o m Edward M a r e a l l e to A k i e l i . The t i t l e in the land c o u l d n o t p o s s i b l y have passed f r o m Edward M a r e a l l e in the clan m eeting. In the first place there is considerable d i s p u t e as t o what had h a pp en ed a t t h e m e e t i n g . Thr ee v e r s i o n s have been g i v e n . Edward M a r e a l l e t e s t i f i e d t h a t he d i d n o t agree to anything* W ilfred M arealle a lle g e d that Edward M a r e a l l e had a g r e e d tc d i v e s t h i m s e l f o f the land, and t h e Cnairman o f the m e e t i n g a l l e g e d that Edward M a r e a l l e had a g r e e d t o t r a n s f e r t h e l a n d t o A k ieli on c e r t a i n c o n d i t i o n s w h ic h had n o t been c o m p l i e d ell^,te judge e r r o n e o u s l y r e l i e d on t h e c o p y o f t h e m i n u t e s o f t h e m e e t i n g a s t o what had a c t u a l l y t r a n s p i r e d at the m eeting. *' We a r e sa tisfied th at the f i r s t ap pellate j u d g e was wrong i n h o l d i n g t h a t Edward M a r e a l l e had d i v e s t e d h i m s e l f o f the land in q u e s tio n in fa v o u r o f .\ k ie li» The t i t l e o f Edward M a r e a l l e t o ^rhe l a n d r e m a i n s i n t a c t and had n o t b e e n a f f e c t e d j.n any way by t h e c l a n m e e t i n g which o b v i o u s l y a r r i v e d at no d e f i n i t e con clu sion » However we a r e o f t h e v i e w t h a t t h e m a t t e r was clea rly a c iv il dispute, not a crim in a l m atter. I t was u n fortu n a te that c r i m i n a l a c t i o n was t a k e n i n i t i a l l y , , From t h e evidence it was q u i t e p o s s i b l e that W i l f r e d M a r e a l l e h o n e s t l y t h o u g h m i s t a k e n l y had t h o u g h t t h a t Edward M a r e a l l e had a g r e e d t o l e t A k i e l i b u i l d op. the land in qu estion , and had t a k e n s t e p s a c c o r d i n g l y # He m ig ht ha v e t h o u g h t so f r o m t h e a b o r t i v e discu ssion s which t o o k p l a c e at the c l a n meeting* In t h a t e v e n t , there was no i n t e n t i o n t o a n n o y , n o r was t h e u p r o o t i n g o f ^ j u e r t a i n pXants w ilfu l damage on t h e p a r t o f W ilfred M arealle. As r e g a r d s t h e c o u n t o f f a i l u r e to c o m p ly w i t h a law ful order, learn ed State A ttorn ey has conceded that the f i r s t appellate j u d g e was r i g h t in h o ld in g th a t t h e p r o h i b i t o r y o r d e r i s s u e d by t h e P r i m a r y Court M a g i s t r a t e and s e r v e d on W i l f r e d M a r e a l l e was i n v a l i d and u n l a w f u l , , A disobedien ce tc such: an o r d e r cajanot b e an o f f e n c e . i We a l l o w t h e a p p e a l o f t h e R e p u b l i c t o t h i s extent. We s e t a s i d e t h e jud gm ent and o r d e r o f t h e Hi gh C o u r t 0 We a l s o quasfr-th-e c o n v i c t i o n s entered Toy t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t and s e t a s i d e t h e s e n t e n c e s im p o s e d on W i l f r e d M arealle. We s h o u l d p o i n t c t i t " ' t h a t W i l f r e d M a r e a l l e should f o r t h w it h d e s i s t , i f he h a s n o t done so a l r e a d y > f r o m e n t e r i n g o r i n any way in t e r fe r in g w ith:the piec* atfSGand i n question in d e f ia n c e o f Edward M a r e a l l e . DATED a t ARUSHA t h i s 2 1 s t day « f J u l y , 1£86« ' 'ur.»X X \ • .-*r • A. MUSTA M JUSTICE OF APPEAL L, M. MAK4LIE JUSTICE OE APPEAL A. M. A. OMAR JUSTICE OP APPEAL I certify that t h is i s a tru e co p y * f the o r i g i n a l * u (J. H. MSOPEE) DEPUTY REGISTRAR..