19890531 TZHC Dar es Salaam2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA

AT DAR ES SALAAM

APPELLATE JURISDICTION HIGH COURT CRIMINAL APPEAL N0:111 OF 1988 ORIGINAL CRIMINAL CASE N0:22 OF 1987 OF THE

DISTRICT COURT OF RUFIJI DISTRICT AT UTETE (Before J.P. MTUIY Esq. District Magistra•te) HASSAN! MATEA •......•..••.••..• APPELLANT versu.s THE UNITED REPUBLIC ...•.••.••.•• RESPONDENT

J U D G ME N T MAP I GANO,. J. The appellant Hassani Matea operates a retail shop at Utete in the Rufiji District. On 25/9/1987 he sold three items at pr~ces that allegadly exceeded the maxima. He was charged with three counts laid under section 20 and 26 of the · Regulation of Pri-tes Act, 1973(Act No.19 of 1973, herein after to be referred to as "the Act"). He was convicted on all the '"··~ou.nts on 13/1/1988 and then sentenced to fines . totalling shs.21,000/- in defau.it to imprisonm.Grl for .a sub- stantive term of three year~. He paid the fine a:tter serving impri~onment for two days. The trial magistrate believed the prosecution evidence that the appellant had sold a mo-e-qcr1to coil for shs.80/=, Sportsman Cigarattes (fou~1 for shs.14/- and a match box for shs.4/- to a poliee officer, one No.D1642 P.C. Leon~rd. The magistrate stated that the appellant should have sold the items for shs.24/-, shs.2/45 and shs.3/-, respectively. In doing so the magistrate appears to have been influenced by the allegations in the charge sheet. Against the tt:mviction it has been submi ~_ted on behalf of the appellant that there was no evidence whatever that the goods in question were pri•e-.,ontrolled. On behalf of ," I· the Republic Mr~ Barahoneka, leatned state attorney, ha~ - _,r associated himseif with that su.b~ission and de~ltned to support the conviction, and I think he is

right. Section 20 of the Act makes il an offence for any person to s-ell any price-•,.Jntrolled goods at :a pri~e which e~eeds the maximum pric~. By section 2 of the Act ''price-controlled goods" neans goods the maximum pri(;e for which has been l ... - ..... /2 2 fixed by a ~~·tio~ issued or deemed to have been issued under the Act, and "maximum prio~ 11 means the maximum lawful price .at at which goods may be sold in wholesale, sub-wholesale, retail or 0the-rwise, as the case may be, in accordance with the provisions of the Aot' Section 9(1) of Aot provides that the Brice Commission may, ·from time to time·, determine and review pri~e structures on a national basis of goods in accorda~ce with the provisions of the Act. And that subsection read together with section 7(2) and 10(1) empowers tne Regional Development Director1~0 determine and review pria~ structures of goods sold in his regi0n, from time to time, provided that no such determination and review has not been done by the Frice f)ommission. There was no trace of evidence that either the Price Commission or the Regional Development Director had fixed maximum priaes: for the _gc,ods in question. The conviction cannot therefore be sustained. This appeal is thus allowed and the conviction quashed. The sentence is set aside and" the fine is to be restored t.o the appellant. ~~-9~ D.P. MAPIG~

JUDGE

DAR ES SALAAM 31ST MAY, 1989