19941005 TZHC Dar es Salaam

. THE UNITED ::IBFLJBLIC OF TAN&:~NIA IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA (Wi.IN REGISTRY) APPELLATE JU~ISDICTION H:GH COURT CRH1PJAL /iPI:EAL NOe 198/93 ORIGINitL CRrnINAL CASE NOe 201 OF 1992 ( F THE DISTRICT GOUR? OF :Ll/1L-_ vIS'lRICT AT K:i.SUTU B':!:fo::-e Nir.~o.:'.~ Esq_,,~ DiBtr:'.ct Mis.gistre.te o · C O O O O o 0 • e APPELIANT THE UNITI I- RBRJBLIC 0 O O O O o 0 0 " o (t '. ;;» 0 0 0 • • • • RES FONDENT t' (Origihal Proseeut.,.) J.u D GM ENT: - - - - - ·- - · . . . . . -- pm ' ....... .. MWAIKASU~ J • !y this appeal, the appellant• one I1JMUMBA :STJM/1. rnsso ® JOSEIH NYAMLYA, eha.llen~ the oecisien of' the lower court t wheJ.·e I en a charge t;r· Nbbery with vislenca e/s 255 and 286 of the Penal Code i,nvolving a' · ~ ' . vehicle, Reg, Npo TZ:B 41658, Toyota Corolla worth Tshs 1,500,ott/• 11 the F•perty ef one FELIX MACHA , he ,,,as, i,n 3L11L~.9~, convicted •.t '. •. -.i•h' .tenee and tsentenced tt, a term of l,1?,_ir~-~ yearr, of impri~JP~,'~,,.-,.,- . The grounds uptn. vhich the judgement of the lov;er court has ._ee• N impugned. ea.Tl be summarised ae follows: '8-) That the lear?led trial magistrate misdi~ctec. himself ; ,,} . both in laH end fa.ct in holding that the pr~ecuti8n had pYed the case against hio beyond all reasonable doubt; W:i) That the lee.rned trial magistr!lto misdirected himself in la;-, by h8arins the case and imoking the proviliions of so226 of th"J C,. P,Ao 1985, ,,:hen the ap~llant ~,~s in. eustedy at Ukonga Prisono I - 2.- Fol' the Rc:!.)Ublic Hr-. Mlipano~ lenr,~d et<".te J.ttornay sutyportec lteth conviction and scnt~nco of the lower court on the grounds that the prQSe... cutio:1. had proved the Cc!.se against the ap~1e1lant beyond all reaso:iable doubt that th~ ho.':l committed the offence of which he was so convicted oto I:1 this regard tl1e learned State Attorney argued tho.t according t • t'ne "ppell.,., V 1 <-,-• ~~ Cl. .1.. v l..J ,...., ....... • , .,. • ~-·-·l 1,.,..... ... ,. .... e1nent .1.},-,t • JV, L,c t, __ ... '·'"'"' ~ ~-·-,co~A v. -.. : • .. - ~..... ., the 0 d b'U' . rw 5 f n.,O the ap~Tllant had confessed to hn.ve committed the offenc0 in question 0 He add0c. that l'.ccording to the cautio~1ccl. statement in.de by the original 2nd ace 'Bed vri:1ic~1 ,. a.s :.:'E,c :,:rded by tl1e HJ, 31 such ap1:;0llo.nt r,3 co--ac-cu!!ed had ah) confes~0d to have com::iitte··; the 0ffence in quostion i_.1hile in the com 'lc"nY of th::, e.pp')lla~,.-t. He i\lrthe:- argued that the P~J. 2 's motOl'" vehicle • hich ,,ras r"bbE:d c:.1 the vr~E~- night of the incident we.s the ve-i,y one in ';hich the 1.rnpellant w1:us found in con..'1ectirn wi f;h ,~he commissie1t ftf the ; nd ro·obery o It was further contended by the lenrned State Attorne:· that the F.rlo1, ,-•ho had been driving th~ motor vehicle p:p:i.or' te the firt:t robbery had seen the appellant during the day time of the eseme MY whe1·. the first robbE:ry took plnce and later mruw.ged to identify tke . ~}'pellant at the poliM idantific~Hon r,art->.d1-; in con".:!,.,~-'-;~ 0r. w~_t' th$ 0 • ~e•ond . r~bbery ineident. . On the appellants claim in his memo of appeal th·1.t the ease ••re.a heard in his ab~enee while he was under the custody of -~he prison of f:J.r,J.' in charge, e.t Ukonga Fison, he referred this court on ~11L~ of th8 t~d. '1"&eees.in.gs where it is on record that the public prosecutor Wormed the ceurt that the appellant had been brought to eourt but h~d refueed t• enter .the ceurt whereupon the trial court proceeded -~o hear the ·c~ in the ahsenee of the appellant j_n accordance ,-,ith the provisiena sf ~ '• 2. 26. (1 ) sf the Co P A 1 985 I t was t h en h'.1S SUbm1s21on .., I C SO 9li9 0•1.0 . . t hat un d er Q --.,. eirC,Uil'l8taJ'.l..., ae the appellant's rP.~$al to appea~ in ceurt"' nc, fo•d. reason could not be t~en as good cause for such non--appea.1tance• the appellant could not invoke the provisions of subs°...,_(,?) ~ !':2.~(; If the C.PoA~ to have the trial of the case re.-c:p9ned. Up0n noting that the ap--oollnnt;s complaint that he failed'~ •Ppeel' ,n ~•urt 1·1hen the case ,..,as heard by the l0'-!8r court on 1;,L~L1 ,9i beruse _pe t-,ae then under thP. custody of th9 Prison Offioei- inclllargQ at Uk~nga · ' ' . · priw-, is 1 perh.D.l'S• tho most important issue in detQI'fning thie .,,ea.1 1 ,. - :~~If!!. ~ _.rder •was mado by this core~• ~ i n g thg. pri~n ··f~~ ,qs99 of Uk~ ~r:i.s~ to ~,rear an affidavit, inform.ing th1s ,. ~t · '{:,. • . . · ···~~·G/30 •ti ' ~ • i,.; ' ... 3 - 1 • •· h:1t has tu~l'led. c·.!t is that by such prison office?r ~ s affidavit 1 the day •·he prooecutor c1~~.:r..~1d -~lm-!.: ·chi"! .,.;,p::11£.;,rt had attended the cou:t"t bv.t rei\s'1d to enter tho courtr~om. ·ch~ appellaYlt was not actually taken to eourt • " . He· \:t;::; ::l.c:t ::.n ::u:::t-::::y at u:~.on~;'.l 0 ::..so:-so '?i1~t being the . ~osition 1 as also contendod by the a7p~llant, it is evident that as the ' appellan ·. had then no pcMer to :'.:orco himself out of the prison in ordeF to atten< ( the court during the heariEg of his case in such day when the hear:· ng of the first prosecution witness commenced~ he had good . . cause f~ his absencea IL the circnmstances and in terms of So2~6 (2) of the C.P.Ao 1;e5. ' the only juet course to take is to quash the a.ppel'.).ant•s conviction so <>•' that he 1.e given the opportunity to be heard on the meritso ,:. I. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed, setting aside the lowe~•ot!l'"'3 eenvicticn and eentenee \•ri th an order th'-'.t the trial of .a..1,~ appellant • ~ d ~oeeed de novo, before another magistrateo It if: so ordered, »el~vered this 5th day of Octob')r, 1994, ~t Dar eE: Salaam, in 1hambeils. i? t ~ l,1.!'e:>.~'. ,z:·. ot" M;t•,"'. l;'w-el;;ai;:i.:t", n--:, :1 '.:½.~ ~1la11t ~ is une.er cust.d:yq Ro MWi1.IKASU ... JUDGE ... ._ ..........,._. ' . ' Certified.true e-,y .-f ~he o:t'igin~l judgment.