emmanuel heneriko vs mussa nongo 1998 tzhc 1999 13 july 1998

IN Till-: 111*11 .u f OK TANZANIA AT M-.'AN7.A (PC) CRIMINAL* APPEAL NO. 1 OF 1 9 ^

FROM THE DECISION OF THE DISTRICT COTTRT OF CHITA ni^T^TfJT A? 'J K Z 'V : I ” { ^ I ’-'TtfAL APPEAL HO,1*1 /1997 BEFORS K.K, MRIGHQ - DM. OPIOINAL CRIMINAL CA~E NO. 2 6 5 /9 7 0 ? NYANKUHBU PHIKAKY COUliT • « - « 3MHANUEIj HSNF.RIKO.............................. .. . .APPELLANT V ersus MUSSA NONGO.................................................. RESPONDENT Q H K i? j. J have f?one through the «p p e?l documents; in th is a^rieale The appeal is by the complainant in a case which o rig in a te d in the primary co u r t. The ]<ppublic through Hr. Kabonde, learned Senior '-.ate \ttorney, dulv informed th is court on 1 7 /6 /9 8 , that the re p u b lic had no ?n te re st in thin appeal, aria I discharged Mr. Kabonde, Hry^n o-rrusal o f the judgement of the T)istrict Oor.rt in apneal, which iyaaw ent i s a p p e a le d a g a in s t , I have n oted thf»t t h ir a y iw a l i s tfeterm in a b le a point of law: liether the owner of ca ttle which enters another persona pYm Vi '-.Tin ^at*3 up c r o p s t h e r e i n , can be c h a r te d w ith m a lic io u s <laM;ir* t o proi-nr:.y c /" * 1 ) o f t.hf' TVnssl c o d e . The e c c u s o d /r ^ s p o n d e n t, Mussa Noncjo, w&s c h a r ,^ « v.rj tb '^<1: c lo u s d-m ai'e t o p ro p e rty c /a ??6 O ) e n a l C od*, because hi'? cows <$.«*■*tr o v * d c s s s a v a and sw eet p o t a t o e s in a oi-m lain an t’ a shamba* He was c o n v

ic t e d by th e t r i a l prim ary C o u r t, and wa~ s^nteni'.ed to 1 ? months im prisonm ent, plu 3 X 2 2 %1 3 0 /k co m p e n sa tio n . On a p p a a l t o th e D i s t r i c t C o u r t, th e s a id jud;<ra^nt, th a t is? the con%’ i c t i o n and s e n t e n c e , were quashed and s ^ t a s id e r e s p e c t i v e l y . The re a s o n <riven by th e a p p e l l a t e D i s t r i c t M a g is tr a te (M r. Mrfcsho, D/K) a r e in ray c o n s id e r e d view q u it e r i g h t in v ie w o f th e lav/ in v o lv e d 0 C o n se q u e n tly , T air. s a t i s f i e d ti.a t t h i s a p p e a l i s vrithout s u b s ta n c e , and in terttis o f s e c t i o n 28(j*) Mr A, 8^, 1 sum m arily r e j e c t i t . O rder a c c o r d in g ly # •, ’ i. Nchalla

JUDGE