19830521 TZHC Tabora

I, •1• IN THE HIGH COURT OF TAN ZANIA AT TABOR, APPELlATE JURIDICTION HIGH COURT CRIMINAL APPEAL No • 6 OF 1980 ORIGINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CASE No. 425 OF 1979 DISTRICT CORT OF NEGADISTRiCT AT NZEGA B efore; ItElIFil. . . . • • . . . . . . • . . . . . . . , . . • • • • • • •Esq. ,Resident Magistrate. IcYABI . ....... .. . .'.... •.. • •., . ... Appellant .. ..(Original Accused) Vera us THE REPUBLIC.. . . . . . • • • • • • • • • . . . ... . • .a . ... . . . •Appellan.t (Original Prosecutor) CHARGE: 1st. Count; Driving a motor cycle on the tb1 road without a motor vehicle Insurance. C/S 4 ~1),.~~d Sub (2) of the motor vihicle Insurance Cap 169 of the 1aw 2nd. Count; Driving a motor cycle on the public road without a valid driving licence. C/S. 19 (1) and 113 (1) of the roadTraffic Act. 30 of 1973. JUDGMENT CHIPETA 9 J. The appellant was convicted on his own pleas of..guilt 3' to the • offences of driving a motor vehicle without a motor vehicle Insurance and driving a motor vehicle without a driving licence. ife was sentenced to pay Shs. 250/= or two ;oths imprisonment, in default and Shs. 2007= or two months imprisonment, respectively. Further, he was disqualified from iriviig or obtaining a driving licence for one year. I respectifLilly agree with the leamed state attorney that there is no merit in this appeal. The convictions proceeded on the appellant's own unequivocal pleas of guilty, and the sentences were, if anything lenient. As to the order of disqualification, the appellant had n othing to say at the trial when he was asked to show cause why the order should not be made. In his memorandum of appeal, he simply says that he is hampered in his work because of the order of disqualification. By any stretch is no reason for not ordering disqualification. For these reasons, this appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed in its entirety. . . p • 4 4 i4 I 1 - 2 - work That evidence, by a witness called by the appellant suportod the first respondent's case. It fully supports what the first respondent and Elias Kasaza. said - that the appellant had $howod the first respondent where to iuild, a hotse.arid the first rospondont built that house for himseif. The appoilant may, have assistod in the work but certainly the hou.e belonged to the first ospondont The ovidonco by appollant's witness Abdallah Musa was not of much use because that wit:.oss could not toll the court who actually built the house.. All. that the witnoss said was that the houso in dispute was close to the appollantts other houses1 That is true and the witnesses who were called to testify for the first :rcspondent as well as tho"appollant's cn witness, Ali Ropwa, said that the appellant himsoif had shown the first respondent where to build the hous that house belonged to the first respondent. The learned resident magistrate properly considered the evidence before him and arrived at a correct conclusion that the house in dispute belonged to the first respondont,. That being the position, the first respondent was entitled to soil the houzo to the second respondent - The appeal is dismissed with costs. W. J. Mama JUDGL TANGA 21 May 1983 -Appellart Present First respondent Prosont Musa Athumani Present. I. certify tha1 this is the true copy of the o'iinal. /Mapunda STICT REGISTRAR