emmanuel so bufe mkuyu and others vs republic 2020 tzhc 244 3 february 2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA

AT KIGOMA (Kigoma District Registry) MISC. ECONOMIC CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 03 OF 2020 (Original Economic Criminal Case No. 1 o f2020 o f the Resident Magistrate Court o f Kigoma at Kigoma) 1. EMMANUEL S/O BUFE @ MKUYU 2. LILA S/O JELA @ SAID ~j 3. JOSEPH S/O ATANAS NANAGE @ KIPARA U APPLICANTS 4. COSTANTINE S/O TULIMANYA @ MALAN DA 5. SALEHE S/O ALLY@ MGANGA

VERSUS REPUBLIC............................................................ RESPONDENT

RULING 3rd Februarv,2020 & 3rd Februarv,2020 MATUMA, J. The applicant herein EMMANUEL S/O BUFE @ MKUYU, LILA S/O JELA @ SAID, JOSEPH S/O ATANAS NANAGE @ KIPARA, COSTANTINE S/O TULIMANYA @ MALANDA and SALEHE S/O ALLY® MGANGA are indicted of an economic offence in the Resident Magistrate Court of Kigoma at Kigoma, Economic Case No. 1/Z020. They are alleged differently on different counts of the charge to hove been conspired to commit an offence contrary to section 384 of the Penal Code, Cap. 16 R.E. 2002, Abuse of Position contrary to section 31 of the Prevention and Combating of Corruption Act, 2007 read together with paragraph 21 of the first schedule to^Jthe Economic and 1 Organized Crime Control Act Cap. 200 R. E 2002 as amended by section 16 (b) of the written Laws (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act no. 3 of 2016, being found in unlawful possession of forest Produce contrary to section 88 of the Forest Act no 14 of 2002 as amended by section 28 of the written Laws (Miscellaneous Amendments) (no.

2) Act, 2016 and unlawful transportation of forest Produce contrary to section 89 (b) of the Forest Act no 14 of 2002 as amended by section 29 of the written Laws (Miscellaneous Amendments) (no.

2) Act, 2016 read together with paragraph 33 of the first schedule to the Economic and Organized Crime Control Act Cap. 200 R. E 2002 as amended by section 16 (b) of the written Laws (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act, 2016 and section 97 (l)(b) of the Forest Act supra. When they were arraigned in the trial court, they were not granted bail as the value of the charge exceeds ten million Tanzania shillings. Mr. Daniel Rumenyela learned advocate for the applicants submitted that according to section 29 (4)(d) of the Economic and organized Crimes Control Act supra, the jurisdiction to grant bail to an accused where the value of the property involved in the charge exceeds ten million Tanzania shillings is vested in this court and that is why his clients were not granted bail by the subordinate court as the value thereof is Tshs. 22,323,300/=. He further submitted that the offences charged against his clients are bailable and therefore his clients be adm itted on bail under affordable bail conditions. On his party Mr. Shaban Jum a Masanja learned state attorney for the Respondent has not objected the application only that he drew the attention of the court to the Requirements of Section 36 (5) (a) to (d) and section 36 (a) and (c) of the Economic and Organized Crimes Control Act, Cap. 200 R.E. 2002 when setting bail conditions. 7c In fact the accused persons are entitled to bail pending

trial which is a statutory right on bailable offences like the instant one which they are facing in the trial court. Their application has as well not objected by the Respondent. In the circumstances I hereby grant the application and admit the applicants on bail on the following bail conditions: - (i) Each applicant to have one reliable surety who have permanent residence in the locality o f the applicant's premises. Each o f the surety shall sign the bond o f Tsh 2,232,330/=. Each surety to have an introduction letter from his or her Employer if employed in Public Service or a Private recognized institution or from any o f the local leaders o f the respective area to wit: Village chairman or Village Executive Officer, Stret Chairman or the Mtaa Executive Officer or the Ward Executive Officer. (ii) Each o f the applicant to deposit in Court cash Tshs. 2,232,330/= or in the alternative deposit the title deed o f an immovable property o f an equivalent value. I f the tile deed is not available then the applicant to bring any other proof o f the existence o f such p rop erty in which case the C ou rt sh a ii b e at liberty, to accept upon satisfaction or deny if not satisfied. (Hi) For clarity the cash to be deposited or the title deed need not be the property of the accused in person. It might be of any other person who volunteer them to be deposited for and on behalfof the

applicant and who shall also appear in Court to undertake on record the risks o f putting his/her properties as a bond to the applicant (iv) The applicant to surrender to the nearest Police Station his passport or any other travelling documents if any. (v) The applicant should not travel outside the country (abroad) without a prior written consent o f the Resident Magistrate Incharge o f the trial Court (vi) The applicant to report to the Resident Magistrate Incharge o f the Resident magistrate Court once in every month as shall be scheduled by the said Resident Magistrate Incharge. Whoever aggrieved with this ruling is entitled to appeal to the Court of Appeal of Tanzania subject to the requirements of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2009 as amended and the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, Cap. 141 R.E.

2002. It is so ordered. JUDGE, 03/02/2020 Court: The applicants to be brought before the Deputy Registrar today for approval of sureties if any. 03/ 02/2020