20130311 TZHC Mwanza

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA ' . • I -~ •• '\ . I l:l IN. THE DISTRICT REGISTRY OF MWANZ.A . ' AT MWANZA } \ . ,, ·. <. ·',. .J ; .: ~t: ... ;_~-:-·: .:\ .· [PC] CRIMINAL APPEAL -No 50 OF 2010 , .• , (From ihe decision of t~e.District Court of Magu Criminal Appeal No 77 of 2009) (Original Magti Urban Primary Court Criminal Cose No 183 of 2009) ISMAIL NURU ............•.....•••....•......• APPELLANT . ) ·VERSUS NOAH .MPY·ENI ........................... ... RESPONDENT JUDGMENT MRUMA, J. In Magu Urban Primary. Court,· the appellant Nuru Ismail was charged yvith the offence of threatening violence contrary to Se~tion 89(2) of the· Penal Code [Cap U6 Vol. 1 of the Laws]. He was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of T.shs 50,000 /=. ~e was aggrieved and unsuccessfulli '.appealed to District Court. This is therefore the second appeal. . . · .The. brief facts of the case as can :· discern~d from the record· ·' '• cis follo'Ns; On 2 nd April 2009 ·:C::} about 9.00am at .ljinga 1 •. l_. --- l . ...• i .: I , in' /v\agu. District 1·he respondent Noah I M¢Yeni . accompariied.by:hi:~: " ... ·:· two children ·, was drivLrig ' ... hi_s herds of cattle . headiryg; ~qv.iardl ·grazing arech~ On way . he met the ~ . ) r ~ /" ' l.._'°~-- . appeBant who. stcirted to drive· the. respor.,dent's \' herds towards . . i another direction while ·threatening that he \Nifl kill the appellant .\ i' - . I . . . .' ; .! i1 toge~~:-:.:·I' · vdth his famHy. in the following ti:glH . he attacked the ( •.. · Ii ' 1 ~spondenf s house by throwing stones at the hdn~~- ,, I drivin.6 :~"'.•: and b!Hng_. ,.the ,,. respondent'.s .. he:r-ds .:.;,. \·. of cattle while· t~r.~~~Jt~}p~,vff!. ... : kN\ht-~~~rnireifa~ily~ - ·:. .• ' ·. ._, lll~~i/ · was sufficient I ~_f. /~•Ti (fflS.89':1~;~nt:..,·;1p 6\ry~ ::~.f_t~~t that he \IV,,Js threatened .was . ·-. ·::-·r··~r.:-- ---~\ -~ - ·:. :,-: 2 '; \ . (i:'{tYf~'rtc;~--- a'~J ·-r~rC:\lf:_ .1-r.1.\~·1· J_f·~~:- ·- .-: by the testimonies of his. two. children ; ·,··..,1.·,!_ V 1~·• • •· . ~ ~•• ·•~~- • evidence relied by t~e tri'al court in con,,icting the appellant ·and whkh v✓ as upheid by the District Appe!!ate Court is a sw~eping stcJtement to the ·.effect that the appellant' had threatened to kill,:· .::)t:~:· ~-::~t··. :· ;~-<~;·r·. ~·t.: .... : < ,·..... :;::tc:.:. ~ . •. .,; .... : ' I !ti • I• ; •1 "i'i iwho· : I ' · ! .. fhe ,r,esponde,.rp·.5.. and -his. family. In his evklence the oppellah:t ; .. \:\• ·-: . (_~ -~ . . ' • '. .· '.' i , · I I testified qs PW'1 told the C.011rt th,is; ;· ~ . ;' /~~-'. : . ,·· .: .-· :- . .. , (·. ' ~_, ,.: . . ,. onanzo kuwopigo ::' so1:an • •• . w• • • • na maro .-C!·lc~.. . no wcmgu ataniua n11m1 no f.amilio• 1 onr11/· Y...... ~.,:·= 1 f:9 0.:nbe · hu··., 1.r1·=~:: 3 .. . . . ...-;::i. ;-; ...: . : .1•· ., r:~;-).:./ 4 • On the ·other hand there is evidence of S_uzan Beneth, PW2, o child of l 3 y·ears .old who is on record telling the court that; " ... . ,.'.ghafla · alitokea mshtakiwa no · kuanza kumpigo ng' ombe kwa kuwaz.uia wasiende malishon mara mlalamikaii alimhoji ...... ndipo ' ·. mshtal,iwo nlianza · kuin~tshia/kymtilhia· · ~· ·- ·:,_; .m.falamikqf( !(uwo atamua pamoia .· np Familia yoke ·. .. -...: ... · . . . \ !;.. ,:; na mifugo 4ffi',l;6' hataondoka ..... . ,' - ;Jjd ;., ·: On her p(?rt -~_enecl~.tha ~oah who was als? in the scene told the • .-·1 .:.(_';t'.'·•-'1·:·,_/··-: ::·~~_:: ·...,,:·;, -·. ... :·.~ ... • . I. h,mamsindikiza ·mlalam:H:i{i kumf ungulia :;Ng':eumfoeidci.':1£,.PldcL·,malishorii nO mwrenzangu mara ' m.srrtbki:-v·xn::f\Jl.tfokecfna kuanza kuv.;e1piga Ng' ombe t.7'_ii'~c;,/bt:(~t ~19 !.,'. >';,' ,l ~ !._-. \,.~ \ ; \] ~ ·, ! • . • mlalamikaji n;:;'~~- mara alianza ' .. ~ ~;:; \_,, -i<wa mawe usiku." ' ' f.t/t~c;_;· i·r:~;i :··1:·=;.-- -4 ,'') / :ec.ifon- . 89(2): of".. the: -Penal Code . . under . which the appellant WC!S , , _, :harged provid~.s tf-lat: : ,,~:, ' . ,/ .,.,. "Any person who with intent to intimidate or cr'nnoy _. . .. . . . ' \ --/',) ' .,. '--; \i,_. "\· any ·person, threatens to- injure, assault, shoot or (, ~~ . I . kill any . . person or to burn~ p . destroy, or damage. . any · t property ....is guilty off any offence and is liable to . . . . . "....... . '' imprisonment . for c;,ne · year and if the offence is ~ committed af,., I night the offender 1s liable to ) .. s . imprisonriient.for two years" I . I . . From the wording of the above quoted provision of the law ..... I . . it is plain -that for a,ny. threat t? amount to· o criminal offence it . must· be show·n that the threat was uttered with intent to either . i intimidq-te or to annoy the person threatened. .i . I. .r In the case at hand both the charge sheet and the evidenc;e ;i J . in ·supp9rt 9f th~ said charged do not reveal the intent,on o_f the . . I , aHeg~,tj tb~eat. :whHe the charge sheet omitted the wo~rd "witfr i , . . . .• •• ~ • • ' > • • • 5 ''' ' ( ... intentio,n to -intimidate and/ or annoy'', the prosecution. didn't 1.ead : {.. ' ' . I •-t- . ~l ; . I .- evidence to establish the intention of the appellant in u.tterin~ tile .:<(,,·'' .,--. '·. !t·· i -.... ·i\·li!: [ · c;i.!Jeged ,.threat·.. OJ th.at . : ,t· <...:._; the respondent ·-,,.;. was th'recitened a·ncl / ~r . r\ ' ,, '',, . · (.,,. ;'I,. ·· , ·. .t,• , . '· annoyed by-_the alleged' words uttered by the appellant. ' As if that was not enough it is not clea·r from the evidence on ~ ~.es?rd,, as to .. ~N~qt were the actuc1l. tords . spoken by the ' ''•· .. .' . ' . :, '.,: '. '' ' ' ' . ·'.'· i ' ' I appellant so as to constitute threatening viol~nce within th~ ambit I, ,, of Section 89{;2) of the Penal Code. In a case, lik_e this where the .. • •, t . ' • :[ :·!•:! . complainqnt alleges to have been threatened by wo.rds ·it 1ts of . . . ,: legal importance for the prosecution. to lead evidence establishing the actual words spoken by the offender so that the . court can be in ·a position to gauge whether the words constituted ' threats envisaged under Section 89(2) of the Penal Code. It is not sufficient to state generally that the accused threatened to kill the complainant i ' i j 6 The prosecution's case throughout didn't disclose the actual ! ;. · : i: : i : d :\d: :· threatening w·ords spoken by the appellernt. 1Thus~ courf! '}MO:s 1 . . . . . . . . . idenied the· rig_ht to weigh whethe/ the . alle·tec;t, w,ords._,am9unted , ,,J . . . . I . 'f'. \ ~ ,J .\ ~ · to threats within the provisio~s-._ef the cited law. The appell:ant's : . ,. -~i°uilty had therefore nrr'proved beyond reasonable doubt. t. t Having reached th_e,se conclusions, I allow the· appeal quash . ;;-: . . .· ·.. ·.,: .· ·. . ~ . .:·, . ; . the convjction. and s~, lside the seritence of a fine imposed upon_.- ! ·· t_he appellant. / ~ . . . \ ; l • Order accordingly; JUDGE !,. , { l ' 7