20100310 TZCA Tanga

. ' , ' .. ,,... ··cl , ·l ,., T.f\i rff O -~.-¼~\.~i'l IN THE COURT OF AP~EAL OF TA~ZlNIA ATTArGA j j (CORAM: MUNUO~--J;A~tMSOF.FE/J.A.; :And 1IMARO, J.A.) _ - i I CRIMINAL" APPEAU NO. 29 OF ?0i9 , I IDDI SALi MU 1111 ■•■■• ■■■ I. I I 111 ■ ■■■ ■ 111 • • 11 ■ ■ ■ •••••••••••••••••••• APPELLANT •' . ·..· .:, ··VERSUS .. ·... . l . THE REPUBLIC ...................... ,,t,····............,i"·T r, ;

RESPONDENT (Appeal from the decision of thJ Resident Magistrate's Court · at Tan'.ga) I . I (Lema, PRM- Extejded Jurisdiction) • -- 1 :·;;i::~tl'tJtfti'(:.-e·•-·Vf,'--:'·/.\t"'t'll.:A-U.::·Ur ..·••_M·~~t'-·~~ •''"'' •• th Date·. d the _s _d_~~-ofjSeptember; 200, . . 1nl . . . .. DC Criminal Appeal No~· 26 of 2007 .. . ·. I ,, II•'"' I I --------r---- . . .. - -;-- . - - -, ·- '- :- -· l- ·- . . 1uoGMENT ·oFITHE couR11 . 9 & 12 March, 2010 · · · :. • .J ·, •. · 'VF i?.S _: r·: MUNUO, J.A.: . . . ,.· . . ~'--' -i ,1..:_Jt!tii~JOft.Of.tth ~ Rt~i~l;;;;ULi'!i~J ...... '"' -- - ,___ .. - In DC Criminal Appeal .. No. _26i o.f!:,20.07, w_. Le.ma~ Principal Resident

I I I Magistrate,. Extended Jurisdittion;fd1sm;ssed1the1appb11ant's appeal against 1 the conviction.and sentence in Tang~._Jlstrict Court drijinal I Case No. 63 of I I • 1 ··' · ·' "· -··,;I,.,; . '. '.-i · . . I 1 2003. In the said case, the .appellant'had-been-chargea with robbery with .I ! I violence contrary to sectionst128Sfandf28frLdfttbeJ Renal Code, Cap. 16 R.E. - . . I r - i 1 i I --- ---·---.................... ~ = = - = : ! ~ - ......... ,;,::;j .... "--•-. - t th 2002. It was alleged that on the 5 day_ of January 2003, at about 04.00 . ,:·· ,i· - ,- _..,, . -___ ,,:: ---- -r· ·:. - --- - I - hours at new Nguvumali area withil the Municipality of Tanga the appellant stole one thermos flask valued at sh :,000/1, 9 table clothes valued at sh 15,000/=, ~:rt"e···m~_.ttr~ss-,;afued at 36,000/= , 2 sets of , • i '·' • .' I C • ·•· :· .. ·•. _ coaches valued at sh 36,000/= and sh 45,000/= respectively, a mobile : I phone make Erickson valued at Tsh 200,000/=, and c~sh sh 200,000/=, I total valued at sh 500,000/=, the property of Lius Zawadi and at the time of stealing used actual violence to the complainant to obtain and retain the said properties. I' i., "'--••·-._,.t ,;Vlll!tfi ... ,. __ The complainant, P.W.1 MT 69545 ATE Luis Zawadi deposed that he ·,_,.,1V~:. iici_~r, ·/CHLLu ·..A\.., ....,,i ,,L,,._,·,~;, / I' ~ •• • •••• I, ' ' ! ' has been a National Service soldier

since· 1990 in 37 KJ. At about dawn at 4.00 am, PW1 was asleep with his wife and child when thieves broke into . ;' • !· his sitting room and stole his ·coaches: ~he thieves did not stop there. They i I entered the bedroorn and as they Wer,~·stealing the 1V; his wife shouted I,·,' •. t! ' '·: I "thieves." P.Wl woke up and pursued the suspects. He managed to catch -- ,_,, , ; :.;~ i l: - the appellant but the latter_had ,applied! oil all over his \>OOY so he slipped off. The complainan~ solder,~id not:givr,up..He purs~Etthe suspect and managed to catch him on his trouser o avoid the 011 slippery I body. The I I suspect in turn hit the complainant · on the hand with an iron bar I,,, ::;_i 1211... ,_1,_, ,, . I_ ': .I ·,

I I I whereupon he manageiLto.,~SP'lP~,~V:c;im;J.l:Je room, af /uickly rushed to lock the. door. from outsi9?,J?,, p.~~~e,,1,J~E! co~pltint from further pursuing him. The appellant struggled to lock the door andl the complainant pushed the door to exit and apprehe~d his inva~er. Meanwhile, the appellant warned his co-bandits to run away which rthey did. When the struggle over. the door ;n~nsified, th~ appellant g~j up and started . I I running. I , . · The compl~ir,an~ soldier:: ~,'5!t~d. 9nd; i.n hot pur;slJit. intercepted the .. h,· ri7 ••. n. -·', '7('('! .. r-o ., i'ec;~:;:\Df"l'l'froM , .... l.o,J,:; . _. 1-nn· l . 1·r,0·,·n . .. . 1.... . , ." .. ! 1--.. ' ' ' 1 1 appellant's legs {kukata mtama) ~au~iJg the latter to fall down near one Mpemba's shop. Many people convergJci at the scJne of capturing the I . t-.. ,.-l""'d t 41 k·rnP-dOorr·•n ····-- . '--···):nt)0,l7lflf'1S-..ru(::Jqer··-.,-eylec ,' · . '.,,,, ......... . appellant. With the help of those people, P.W.1 took the appellant to ·.: \I !V> dour ,to· ,exit,;.,aild-r-aProrehc&na:,;his ,invader:, 'l"lt:i:-J1iW1iift' i I"· Chumbageni police station wher~ he 1as charged lwi~h the offence of ; - I robbery with violence. / . ._,,. _, 1 ~ ~~~ ~ _,. ~ !-~-~-~: -~L~~1~: _----~ 2 r., ':--' i 1 ~i ~ ~ , -~ ::; . . . . . . . . I In the meantime, the appeHanps pjrty checked for stolen property at the house of the appellant'~

m,~t~J~:' :rty, howevet, rovered nothing. Back home, the. ci~~!~~~~rn~~~'r~~~~f ~91e,n. property as reflected in the charge sheet.. . -· . ·· ··. · , · shorl . M2, ny ·pedj)IE!''tb MC'!(')' id '. ·at the · t;trn1 ·n' ''"int • "' ~-· .. - - "cuUUI 1..;.wuece~Pi'""· c:,_cli«l i,c.J. . .l.. "-~ - '. .. ... •. . .. . :·· . ·,i •• I• • • "I•\• ' ' I The complainant also tendered his PF3, Exhibit Pl fo prove that he . • I sustained a swelling and inter-nal pain 'tin his right hand, h(flrm inflicted by a blunt object, in this case an iron bat He ,also sustained bruises on his left I leg. I In his sworn defence, the appellant stated that he '{Vas ambushed at - .· ·l .... dawn at about 5.30 am on his way to Sahare to do business. He said that about 10 people who identified themselves as TPDF soldiers arrested him ' I alleging that he was a thief.. Ttiey"-beathim and thereafter took him to the ' ! • • .._, ...._ • l '- • j i ~ I, I .. • ! police station where . he was c:har~ied. ~ith the offence of robbery with ' 1 violence. . . - . ·····- '·--··· - . --·--+-. --.,-- ' _., ---- In this appeal, the appellant filed eight grounds of appeal. He ••• I, • " . ,I I. \ I ·'· complained that he was wrongly :convicted on, the eyidence of family I I members namely the complainant who deposed as PWl and his wife, PW2. · -· } \.., '.,_1 ~ • ,.., •• ........... .......__ .------,·--- --- ·-·--· - . --

I Furthermore, the appellant claimed that the prosecution 1did not prove the ·• • . · ·• • • : " I;;• ,: •••, ',· 11, · • • , ','1. '11 '.,• • •I•:• • ._ .• ' • ' case beyond all reasonable doubt considering th 9t no stolen property was I ; I found in his possession and that ~he doctor who treated PWl was not · •~ ' : c· r: :. · , ': 1 • I summoned to testify on the PF3, Exhibit PL- 4 i I .. -•-···,_,,,'""a.,iGi'l-l. -~·\=i1U ~'--i-J\_.:_,~... ~- ... ,!.., i ~. J .: • • \ • ': ~ -: • • • .• ' • • ' ' ,I " l ! ' - , .. I ' ' Before us, the appellant insisted that neither PWl nor PW2 could have identified him because they were asleep when bandits ransacked their I house. Besides, the appellant .further. contended, P.W. L was pursuing a I suspect he had not identified .and whom he did not know .. He further I faulted the prosecution for not producing the iron bar he beat the I complainant with during the hot purs_uit on the material ni,ght. He denied to I have implicated a co-suspect by the name of Mwinyihamisi. It was the ~ , ,, '\ l ' I assertion of the appellant that the case against him was framed up. I Mr. Oswald Tibabyekomya, learned Senior State A~orney supported the conviction · but . not the sentence., ·Urging .that the appellant was . ', .. _ll~jr+ ;. ri·w1'··Hr..1- ' ' : • • I,... rv·,r1: ' ' . " ... . 1 I i-· I apprehended by the complainant in hot pursuit, the learned

Senior State ' .ul , ' I I Attorney observed that although the appellant first slipped from the hands ·• - --,,.c-,,h-r;·-fl"\r--m'f1·--r,itrw:inrin.,-,···H·i71-·1,,:-rfr, i. · · of P.W.1, the latter pursued him until he intercepted' through the legs . ·. ::, ,·,·r· i\11tn'. ··rft"•'-:-•·nn t 11·e· :--n·· ,,t· .. , . .. . ~ .. ," v ·p· u···r· ,){''t''i'1·t• o" ·•·th 6 ·m··;::ri-·,·::iri;'>f , ---; ~I 11 I C, h·- I r\•rfqt-· ' '·i ri,-,, ... ' ... I C I U.:... I ,.1, 1 .. • {kukata mtama} causing the appellant to fall down. Hence the I complainant recaptured the appellant. The learned Senior State Attorney .. _ •. _ -· ,- :~ - 1 ...... I 1-1.._LI 1J L..LI lt!_.CciS.e,_clycw ·,::., L.. l I 111 1 _Hu.:.., j, --- .• - -· .. --- argued that there was no de-linkage during the hot pursuit so the possibility of mistaken identity was !r't'.Jled out. On the evidence of family members, the learned Senior State Attorney observed that the robbery I occurred in the house Of p-_\7v?f ahcfP!W2 ·-so thcise'we-re the witnesses who I ., · 1 cr,f-•.·,ri~ ·1. :,-~r' nl~hhiioh'the's,·o· neffa.rit·tir-.!:t - - , ,..,. , - · • ', I· - · · ··' ,,.:lic:~,_;.;i' r- · ' ·' ···- "------;, - ..:;;dU-b!ng~-t.n@.....c.appen(.lf.ll:"-tlJ-,--ICl!I·- ; i\ ..... ; :. 1 i I .. ; •.• i:..i ,L ,i ,...\..:.:;; 1.d.. UI t:U iJ1e:,.appeiianL; Fne · iedrnt.:£d. :.::d aui- ...JL:~; .. -.:.; , ''"'·"·:,. , I I ' I I eye witnessed the incident The trial coJrt saw and believed P.W.1 and ' I I P.W.2 and as there is. not~ipg .qn: J~c9~p, to Jault their :.credibility, their I I · evidence rightly sustains the conviction, the learned Seniqr State Attorney I argued. I I I With regard to the sentence, th4 · Iearned Senior State Attorney I I observed that under the provisions of sedtion 5 of the Mi~imum Sentences

I I I I Act, 1972, CAP. 90, as amended--by Ac~- no. 6 of 1?91, armed robbery I I carries a , statut9,ry, n:1i.n,i}!1~~:Tsi~t;r?~7e,~~rJhi!o/, y~~~s in;tprisonment. The "I ' . ' • LI. •. \ 'I ' . I appellant, the learned Senior State Attorney pointed out,; was armed with I I I- I an iron rod with which he clobbered thekomplainant _wh~n the latter was .. . - - · . -,--r,--,ri;-c-th·b~nlivi'ttion~tht:1-!1:i-:-rrrjr.rri:- C: _,,_ '(''." ' ~-. . I pursuing. him after the appellant . . .. . . . failed to lock .the ; ., . ·.··!· · t •· .·- . · vi~im's I. . door. from outside. Hence the appellant's sentence bhould be enhanced to the lawful I I mandatory minimum sentence of thirty vears imprisonm ent, the Republic 1 . I ---~:-·-·1··--- ··-. I contended, citing the case of Joseph B~rnard versus ~ Criminal Appeal . . ' . . . I ; _., '' ',' I" ' ' f' '. i '' no. 27 of 2005 (CA) (unreported)~ h\:1 .AJt· 1 i I .. : _. .'.> !. I As for the_ e_q_ha/l~~T:f\:R!f~~~i~s~r~~~;;;t~~-! ~pp:ellant vehemently urged u~ not to.. uph9lq th~., _cqny,i_cti9h,_ Jr, :the. fi_rst pIci~e J~ecaus.e ~he 1 · .- :i \~11 1.-h vvhirh . he·clobnereC11 tth1·comnla1ha·nt 1.v1~ 0 :1 P 1 :-· h ' • , · evidence is insufficient. In this regard,I there would be I no reason for I. I

I I I ............ " 1- ~ ,.,,tJ1.,;.;11d1.n..:.s~ser.ittlf6CE4St.iuu1u~ue-u 11-iui ,__ . •__;. , •. 1 . I .1 I .. 1 , :.1, 1i,; 1; .... 1.., .su.1c.t..mce, 01· .1:1;1irty+ye:ars-1rnj.xi~01 :, !,i ....:;: "', ........... ---;~ "'.... . ,· : . I

I I I i I enhancing the sentence he asserted. Th~ alleged iron bar, the appellant I: I further complained,_ was n?t_.!~~~~I~ ~~,-~;~ exhibit ~oproV,e that there was ' I I armed robbery. All in all, the appellant drged us to quash the conviction ._ ... :- . ;: ··--- ._• . . .,·+·-:- - - '·--_- . - _-. 1 • . I and allow the appeal because there i,_s no evidence : to support the conviction. I, I The issue before .us is, wheth~r. thejprosecution evi1ence established 1: the guilt of the appellant beyond all reasorable doubt. I • . ••• 1 ··-~·•r-;..;--~-~r"\f-f~~c('\?t-~rl ···-tt~tn--r-··;.:t;rT,-,.:.t;;i"-: ,_ ;·,::.\"" .! • 1 We wish to start with the appellantjs attempt to dent the evidence of - .; \ ; , , 1 ·1•~;.;-,; · '.~;_::i·~~ ri0t1+p'hriprptj•::i·c::·--~n··pvhihrtln ,.,,..,,..; 1.,;, te,-_,,·, 1 ,--:,. -- - P.W.1 and P.W.2 because they . . are fam11ly members. Both witnesses are , I i I competent witnesses under the provisions of Section 127 (1) of the i Ii I Evidence' Act,· CAP: 6-R:E.L200:fvvhi~trstat~s,· 'inter::. jalia:--'-I 1 j ,: ·- ;·. . -1, ' . ' ·1 · · I 127: (1) All persons shall be corpetent to testify ~nless the court consider~ __ th8-[ t?e( are prevented ,from I understanding the questions /put to them, or from .--··.-- ,-,---•. ------._-·.-..~-~---1•-.::::-n··;:.:..,.~..:.."•t·,...,.:_:j ,1.. -·1-,···: ·.--· giving rational answers to !those questions, by

reason of - tender years, extreme old a)e,, disease -(wheth:er- of - 1 body or mind) or any othersim}lar cause. · I I I I When the bandits struck at the co_mpl~inant's house, ne was asleep: so : I . - . - . ----- ---~- --- -- ------ ---1-··· : --t, - - --- - .·-- . - I were his wife, PW2, and child .. It .1as PW2 who shouted "thieves" . . ,-, , I ,i,;-[, -,; : 7 I I .- - ·-----i-- .. ----. '... ·- . _I . I whereupon Pw1 woke up, struggled with the appellant at Ithe door as the •-: •' • ,,. 0 • C ,'._ •, •• • • • appellant wanted to lock the door from outside to prevent PW1 from I I pursuing the thieves who had already ransacked the sitting room and •. ' ,,., .. •· . -.,•.../.. ;,C·,:" .. i stolen a TV and cash from the bedroom. Being a soldier, PW1 valiantly I· chased the appellant after overpowering him at the door by preventing the I appellant from locking the said door from outside. I Emerging from the house, PW1 chased the appellant, got hold of him [' . -·1· but the appellant had oiled his body so it ·was slippery. So the complainant I i . soldier missed the culprit. However, PW1 continued with the I chase, caught ·- - - . -... - - . · ., --- ,ui.~1,:-LW.:-GOOf~-'sffOnl-UUC.::>li.,j(_;_,_,J--: ., '· .. , ;, " up and held the trouser of the appellant who then assaulted the . _,,·.o' c.,i;\;..,!i_::;.,vv'liU .nad,a1r~?ady--,ransac~,(Jj ;.:iU .;c,:i.. .. ::•.j -~..ll,, •

, .• complainant with an iron bar. Nonetheless the complainant intercepted the I ' appellant's legs in a process known as "kukata mtama" causing the I . I , . I appellant to fall down. People-cbnvergect :at the scene and helped P.Wl put I -.,;._ ;-~•-~r:...,: i j V:.' =... ,, ..... i: ... ~·-. the appellant under captivity after which P.W.1 took hirh · to ,chumbageni ' I I police station where he was charged with the offence of robbery with violence. Under the circumstances,1,we . ,.. . - -- ··; are of the settle0 - ' .. . i mind . that there was no disconnection to create: possipiliti~s. of: mistaken id:entity. • ' I • There could not have been independent witnes?es because only I . .,,. family members were sleepfog Jn_tfo~_mat~rial house. PW1 stated that the I ... ,, $.' ·.·, ,, i . .. ; , I,. , . , ', , '! 1•:-.,.1:. 4 • ;1 , ~ : .

I I I bandits had locked their co-tenantsL-.roo~s . • , .from outSid~ . I so when PW2 I I raised the thief alarm no neighb()UfS cor:rrged at the/ stne of crime. It I I was after the complainant finally. intercbpted the ap:pe1 1ant at the legs 1 I causing him to fall . . down duripg tb~i09t P.~~suit t_hat . pe6p1k •.· ,....... '·":<·•·c.•"."''c:'.O"·.'·.rf:.;;·•.·•. ;.•._'.:::·:··<··•':'•, ... ,.,... ,.... · .. ... ·1· near the scene ·1 .. I of captivity near Mpemba's sh'C>p,.!.'.'emergeq . . to help. the complainant. :· ....- ·' .. ·.,_, . i;,:., ' .- .. . _,·. I . :· .= I ·. I In view of such glaring .evidence we are unaole to fault the conviction. Indeed, we are satisfied-that! the prosecutioj established the guilt of the appellant beyond 'all reas.o_nable doubt. I . i ·. ./) · ~ · r~ 1 r; f-i:;.' rt<· ;-- _. ; i The appellant was armed' viiith "an iron bar ~Jh he beat the , i :·,--,--;-5:" · "~-i'·,-f;-;:.;. ~-,;tirrhFF;~!~r.::+--::~ r--. ·; :;:o:..:; ·I /. . · complainant with during the hot pursuit. ~esides the iron bar, the appellant • ;,, i 11"-. Fh;.'f:," iirf .-,\Athl'}i i'i'f'f· ~8- f :2H'h~f· ;· '\·ifcY,it'·tH ;ts·: r,),,-.; and his co-bandits executedrthenrobbery~··LJnder the 1Mirn1mum Sentences 1 r .; l : 1, ... ' . . ' rt, C: I . Act, armed robbery carries a : statulory sentende of thirty years 1 ' i imprisonment. In the case -ofJosepri-· se:r~ara ·cited ·supr. ,

the Court noted I I that- ..... ('.·.. ' _·, \ ") _- . ! - , . --r: . . ,,.-,1 .· F-!-,. ·~-. I '. • (i) Although there is, no express, ind specific defi1ition of what constitutes armea. robbecy, it ,s clear that ii a aangerous or . . I offensive weapon,or,,instrument.is U!..11_1.c;_,_~ . ;,lj--''Y•~i.,,,ll .. _ViU- ·•/~'•, r:•/, ,iUII used ;1•,.lj"'-·''· 1n the course , ....... of L,J(ll :1 ... 1 the robbery, such constitu~es armed robbe~ in terms of the law, and, or as amended by Act no. 10l of 1989. .• . •. '•-· 1 • i, I . - . ·------ -··---·-f-9 I I I -- .., , •. : _:. ·-U \ .'. . . ' ["' ,, 1 I I r ,I ·. i ! . I I I/ ' I I (ii) Weapons are not confined to fi~earms only, bth er types of 1 1 weapons such asknives'are'included _.;.___ · I / .I We are satisfied, furthermiretttiat'an·jlroi{ bar is ~n instrument I I 1 constituting armed robbery. Hence, we enhance the ser1tei ce to thirty Ji I years imprisonment. . ·_ i ..f I / . -- .- .... _. _, .·. -_- . ·•· ,_ J> . . j I In the result, we dismiss· tlief ap~eal against ~01viction and enhance the sentence to the mandato~ sentence ~f 1thirty years imprisonment. -· .. ,.---- · -----.. •--+-.-----,,1·- · - I -· 1 . // 0·\•·L·o·...r•1·1,· iu•.. ··I; -ir1 ·_-, I 1 .ll;.u ; .._-:.:u. i ; 1 ,.:.•: :,)!. , , i f '. , , : 1 , •• , 1 _,_ ':" ._. , , 1 V.', •.' - th DATED at TANGA this 10 day;of Mrrch, 2010 I / i ,·.. E.N.MUNUO. • '' ;i r · :'· I I I . JUSTICE Of'APPEAL - ·-· - - :! •/: ~ . . ' • '•• !'., • ,- ,•i>"•t 'j I • J. H. MSOFFEI

JUSTICE OF APPEAL II ._ .-. -.. ··•1l··, · .. I - , I. " • ' [. -----------N, P,-.KIMARQ __ _ JUSTICE OFAP:PEAL . - . ·_ . - :·: . . . i" .,. ;-,,_ . ; - I I certify that this is a true copy of ~he original. _,,_. . . . -.( () - _: --~:'.~':"J: ·•· . I ~~ ~ , I ·· · .·! · ,{NJN~~cni+fW~t1 •·. - - • ; l. ·I ~ EPUTY REGISTRAR I ,." .. . . ,:i !_~ ---iiiiiii'liifiii',,,,.._ --· ,----n·~~T'IrE4Q_~~f;A· I 'pp-~1-- ----:--· 1--- i:: . I 1