19881107 TZHC Dar es Salaam

rn THE HIGH COURT or TL..HZ.iJTL'• •:.T DL.R ES Sii.LiJJ'.i l.PPELLJ.TE JURISDICTION (D 1 Sala2JJ• Rogistre..ry) RIG:::::: CCURT CRDUIC.L LfT..,~:..L NO. 121 OI' 1988 ORIGINL.L CRITEN,'~L C.".SE NO. 87 OF 1988 OF TITE DISTRICT COURT O:D' ~-:OROGORO DISTRICT LT MOROGORO • Before ICTJLOLELI.. ? Esq.,~ District r:b,e,i.str2.to lliJ:11S I KILONGOLL. & OTHERS • ••••••••••••• ., o. • •••••••••••• LPPELL.,:J-TT ( Original f~cct.uJod) versus THE illTITED ?.ZPUBLIC •••••••••••••••·•;••••••••••••••••••RESPONDENT (Original Prosecutor) JUDGMN.\JT MAPIGL.NO 9 J. Hanisi Kilongola has c:.ppcalcd against his conviction for breaking into a bu.ilcling and oorn::1i tting a felony tb. orein, to wH stealing, contrary to section 196 (1) oi': tho Penal Code. T110 trial nagistratc sentenced hir.1 to inprisoni-:icnt :for tI1rco yoa.rs. It we,s rw·i; in clisputo th2,t a c.lispens.:::.ry belonging to tJ.:o Tanzania RaHW,\f~; Corporation situe..tc at the Railw2,ys Workshop at Morogoro was bro1.rnn into in tb.c nigb:b of 11th/ 12th March, 1988 9 and that several articles inolucling a weigl1ing machine? ElifT cliagnostic set and a First .t.id Box Kit w0rc sfolcn. r[l:::.o trial i\Iagistrate found so and his fii1ding is not boing o~mllengccl by thu appellant. The evidence showed that one of the articles ·that were r.1tolc11 frou -~lJ.O dispensary, i~c .. 2. weighing r.:iachino 9 was fonric"':. in the

possession of Hussein Waziri at tho 1'forogoro n2.:ckct on 14/3/88. Hussein who was in the cou1pt1i1;y- o:i:' Kasongo Kassinu had displayed it for saleo On in-i;crrog2,tion Hussein claL7cc_ that he J.1ad. bought the r.1ac:1ino fro□ Sar:iuol Knnyaga for shs. 700/ =. When S2.i:;;uol was contacted a:1d CfLlOStioned ho oonfil~occl Hussein's account and 2-llegocl t:lE'.:b tllo oaollino hacl been cntrustcc1 to hin by ·i;ho appolla11·~$ his 11ci5hb01.,r? :,:or Galo,. Sar:iuel wont on and. 6.isclosed that tho a11pellant hacl o·c:1or itcns at his l10Do v(1ioh he intonclcc.'.. ·co clispose of. Tllo ]_)olico ck:cic-:.od -co -era;_) t::w appcllar:i:t. Tho prosecution cvidoncc s::10wcd llow tho trap was laid, how ·i;hc D,;_}pcJ.L:mt ca.r:10 to J'ilworc .School 1·idinc a bio;yclo c.ncl 02.rryin..:., 2, bo:q how ho was ap1)ro:~.onc.luc"t by PW2 Co11stablc :Nelson of t!.10 naih~2;fs Folioo in proscnco of ·sovoral poo9lo 9 after he l1acl nado 2., bicl.. to oscapo 7 m1d how ·c:-.e bo::: was opened ancl founcl to c0ntai11 sor.10 o::? -c:.10 other articles tI::rd; :lad boon stolen 2:i.·o:J ·cho clispons,:c:cy, 11.a,i-:ioly E.N .To cliagrostic sot m1c:'.. a I:'irst i.id. Bo:1: Ki'Go 2 - The appellant denied entrusting tlle weighing Machine to Swr:iuol. Ho also denied tllat ~10 was fmmcl in posoossion of tho bo:: that contained tho other two stolon arciclos., T:.10 trial nagistra,to fmmd Saouol 9

Ilusscin Waziri 9 Xc,,song'◊ Ko.ssin anC. Const2,blo Nelson to bo truthful witnesses. L.cting- on t:'.loil~ ·i;os·Gii:1ony she found that t~10 appellant wao in recent posocssion of tho stolon articles., Imel :1aving rejected tho denials of t:10 appellai.Yi; as lies the lec..rnod oagistrato concluclocl th2,t tllo appellant we,s a :)o.rty to ·cho o:Cfonco. In his petition of appeal the appella11t essentially rope2,ts --tho cleni2,ls ::ie 0,dvai'1ccd. in tho trio.l court~ Having consiclerocl tho oviclonco on record. I 8J:t satisfied -cb.at the loa:::nod. rangistrn..te I s judgnont cmmot bo fc:,;:.,1Hocl. Tho ,oagistrc..te w2,s oatitled to beliovo tllo 20-...1..r witnosooo. Tho oviclonco o:i: Constable Nelson in p2.rticular deserved. tho croclit tll2.t the learned Bagis·i;r2.to accorded it., I will s1,wt2,in t:10 conviction:., Tho appellant was 2,, first offonclor. But tl10 vc..luc of' tho articjles !:>.c stole is in c.;-::cess o? shs., 100 9 000/=• As observed above, sowe of the. articles were recovered. Tllc vnluc of those -;;~1<1,t disappcarccl i:J in e:r:coss of shs. 66,ooo/=o Tho off once carries a r.1a.xir:n.u:1 penalty of ton yoars t inprisonr,1cnt. The sentence awardocl was, therefore, :.1ot o:;;:cessivc ~ al though tl::.o learned magistrate misdirected l10rsel? t!12.t the offence :f2,lls under the ar.~bi t o-2 J.;he Minirnm Sentences f:..ct 9 1972, In tl1c final result this appeal is disnissecl in its entirety. 7/11/88