N

r IN THE HIGfl: CURT OF TANZANIA' AT .ARUSHA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO0 12.1 OF 1976 (From the decision of the District court Of Mbhi At Moshi in Criminal Appeal No.. 107. of 1975)0 GABRIEL DANIEL • .. APPELLANT versus. THE REPUBLIC 000 00(1 00 C.0t 000 0000 RLPONDENT ZAVA-9, J. - The ool1.nt nas convicted of disobedience of a lawful order c/c' 24 ). e Pcn1 Coe bythe primtry coOrt of KiWoso and -ntcncod to a fine cf $hsa2007— or three months imrisonrnent in deau1t. His appeal to the. District Court was dismissed0 He io now appealing to this court. The appellant, Gabriel Dan{e1, was thed'efndant in a civil suit over a piece of land. The c2ae was heard by the Customary Land Tribunal Wil ch on 14/12/Y4 issiIed an interlocutory order restraining the apIL)o.L nt from cultivating the disputed piece of land until a finil orcr regarding -bvnership of the land was given. The iell --AL duly received the ordO.ro 4.1.75. He however decided not to comply with thd - cr.drr,.and, contrary to the order, ho entered and cultivted the disouted land on 3.2.75 before the finalization of the case. He ws accordingly chnrged with disobeying a lawful order and, as mentioned above, convicted sentenced to a fine of Shs.2.e'/— or three months imprisonment in default. The appellant,'4,5s iowever later adjudged as the owner of the diOputed piecO of land by the Cu.stom-1 Land Tribunal in its judgment - (Civil Case No0 14 of l'4)'— dated 7.8.75. In his memorandum of appeal to t1i:L3 ourt the appellant argued that as he was finally found to ho ho rightful owner of the disputed land both the primary nr 'I istrict courts erred in finding him guilty of disobeying a lawfa L order. As argu d by the dtatu At: o:noy, and in my view rightly so, at the time the order :cstrnin:ng the appellant from cultivating the disputed p .. .cc of 1nd was issued the Question as to who was entitled to 1 nd had not vet been decided. Although the Tribunal later :oc - ded tht arnorship of the land lay with the appellant; tiiea firal decision was given eight months after the order which. restrained the appellant from cultivating the land. As the Question of awnership of the land had not yet been dacidod at the time the appellant breached the lawful order,- he cannor be heard saying that because he was eventually adjudged the rightful onn.o of the disputed pièce of land his act of entering and cultiva .ig the land contrary to the order of the Tribunal was :owful, /2 The customary