20160804 TZCA Arusha

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA:.

AT ARUSHA (CORAM: RUTAKANGVIA. J.A., KILEO. J.A. .. And MASSATL J.A ..) ~ CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 525 OF 2U15. , .. . ····· ... · ..... - : . . . . •··.. . . . ST - JUMA KUY AN.In• ■ 11 ■■ .i'IIC" ■ sw !;i • . : !11!1 ■■ • ■ a ■■■ If l'·•••·■ 11D ■ 2 1111 ■■ ••• a;•·• ■■ !11•••1:1 ■■ ■ I!• ■■ D ■ ■ 1i' ■ a ■ 1 II lll APPEL~N B·_i. · ND .. MUSA DAUDl ■ 1:1a; ■ ■ 11 ■1111 cr.,11 ' ■ -a.a••• a ■ ■.1111 ■■■ ••••·•• ■ -l ■■■■■·a ■ ••• ■ ■ 11 ■ • ■ 11 ■ a ■■■■ 1111 ■■ ■ ■ • • ■■ 2 ~ .. ,, . - •·. 11 - ' , ,. .: ', .". . 111 11 ' APPELLANT, VERSUS· The appellants, wer? convicted. by the Distr.ict Court:. i,.Of Babati --. -_.·_:~. :-. ·~ii~ .·- - district ("the trial cowt"} of Breaking into 'a building and 'corti~itlitting an :,., offence thereifl{l st coL.int) and st,~9l!n9:;(2n~C:OLJqt).,On the 1~·count they:· were sentenced to five _.(5) years imprisonment, while they received a,. · . . . . prison sentencl~ of seven (7) years on the 2nd count. Aggrieved by the _., convictions and sentences·, they preferred an appeal to the High Court at Arusha. · 1 The appeal. to the High. Court .was. groun_ded- oil four grievances, namely:-· . (a) That the ·prosecu6on did not prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. (b) That the trial COlJ'rt 'did n:ot scrutinize and evaluate the evid,ence of PWl, PW2, PW3 and PW4;: and the defence evidence. : (c) -That the trial ,court .. did not consider . .. .. the

provisions· . . of section· ' ~ . ..-- ... •_ ;· .- 198 (1) of the Criminal.Proc~dLfre-Act,·cap.· 20. • i - . [. r. 1- (d) That the. charge sheet was defecti_ve. 1 l'. ··.. '. ·J_~. l- I j_ Aithough th~re . Vvas.:n.9, •. . . :.•· direct . . eviden~e . . ~o-nne.ctin_g. . . . :... _;.. the. appellants . . .• ' • ... " ii?-~,: . ' ·. ., . l with the alleged o~en~es, Jtie: resp_o9ci1=Qt, R~public:::·in the Highi Court; ·::.f~~-:- · •. .. . .. •' " . ,· ,·. . . . '.. . . 17 .... ]":._.··;· ~-. . . -: . -... ; .. :·:·,.,:_.:··~;~. · found those grounds of complaint very frivol_ous arid pressed the learned ... 1~ . 1r_ . .- . . . ~_. ~ ·, '·.. :;· .: . .. ··. .· ·._ ·-.' . . _ •,· first appellate judge to dismiss the appE;!al in its eiitirety. The learned =;=-_•.·:·._·, __ ·.... ··.··.... judge partly agree#~ He dismissed outright the third and fourth grounds . i . ! of appeal. We are :satisfied that .the fourth ground of appeal was rightly I rejected. However, that cannot be said ·ofthe third ground of.appeal.· . The argument of the a_ppellants in relation to the third ground ~f . . appeal was simple. Th~y argued that the trial court had erred in law bY partly predicating their convictions on the evidence of an adult witness, whose evidence was received without an oath/affirmation being 2 administered to her. This adult witness was P'vV4 Ziada d/o Akweso. We believe we have a duty to

justify from the outset, -our stated stance as to. why we respectfully found· ourselves diiTering with "the· po~ition taken by_ ... the learned first appellate judge in disposing of. the third ground· of_ appeal. There is no dispute. Q!l th_e .f~ct,that the tr~aL .court took the evidence of PVV4 Ziada without administering . c:. _;,. . : an .affirmation/oath . ' .___ .--,,- to her.:'·. • Since the trial of the appellants, :was conducted· uryder- the provisions o( the Crim l na I Procedure ·-' Act/ ..½~P. . ;:_ 2.0, ._ R. E,. 2 00 2.: ('~the' CPA''), · the<.. , I mandatory provisions· of. s~ction_ 198 ,· (1.) of the_: C.RA<;governed the,-,,:: .• . . . . ·... · ! reception of all the' witnesses ·in the case;-_ .... ..... _ . h". _- Section 198 (1) ofthe CPA, reads as follows:- "Every witness . i[J cf. criminal. cause , ... •: or matter shall ·. . . .. subject to theprovision$ ofany other written /aw to the contrary ·be examined upon,· oath or _affirmation in ac(ordance _with the provisions of the Oaths and Statutory .. . . Declarations Act. // . . . . . · [Emphasis supplied], • 3 In disposing of this p·articular ground of appeal, the learned fiist f appellate judge, reasoned thus:- 11 1 have perused the 1proceedings in respect of the case before the District Court and found that it is true that the evidence. of PW4 Ziada.·· Akweso ·was . l .. . ,. -::· ' ,• .. "'· · ·... ,•

. . taken without•· taking· oath· or affirmation. It is · ' ' ' .::.· ' . . . . . unfortunate .that. the.· appellant raised_ .it at ·this .. ,..· ~ . stage·when ·the evidenc~ was already.considered . . " . ' and used· in· ·conVlcting .the '.appella11ts;. I think • where there is_ an_ 9n1is~(Qf?. PY: a,: tria!_.cqurt .to commit a. witness: to addll_qe ·evie,ence on_::oath ·.or. . . affirn1ation that evidence ,would be -considered as • •• ,u ,, •• : ... • • ' • ••• , _. ·- .. •• • . . unsworn evidence. It /s trite Jaw· that unsworn evidence can.be relied onJf it is corroborated by_ .. • • • >• ~ • • • • independent . .. . evidenc~. . : . In Saasita '. :,· ,_ .! i, Mwanamaga.nga . versus The . Repub_li~ ·criminal Appeal_ No.. 65 .pf .2005 (HC TBR) {unreported) this Court held:_ 11 ... the law is settled that the omission to conduct a voire dire examination -of 4 a. child. of tender years brings such. evidence.· to ·the .· level of unsworn ! . ' evidence}'/ · I In the instant case/ I thinkfai/ure by the court to make the witness_ to swear or affirm.rendered the testilnony . ',. the... of. witnes$ .as '; unsworn. ' •,:., ·. ·;· .. ·_ .. ·. ·.· . ,, -- ,.. . evidence. ,: .. ,• ; ,• . " ., . . And . such evidence . .. .. could.be- . . ,. .used .' to convid·Jf the . .... ,_ - ' . ,.·. . ,· . .. I ,. ' '.•': • • ;. '. '• ' ,. • ' ; ' : '• ,. • • • ~ . nothing . bL(tt1~, t,rJJ//J. _/l_s,

_it ,:i,;;fI! be shown ~W.4 s .· evidence .. . · _....was:~ . . cQrro/:JotfJted.-. ~/:··:fi _·,:·: .. · ·'.·. -.. .-~~-.::-.·...:__ .."_.~' Moreover/ !' :.:. _·. .. . . · ~.. the . evidence of Pl!V4. // ·. · We appreciate, after going through the evidence O!) re~ord, that · .- .. . .. ~-~E~ .·:-. :-' ;> ·- ·-::; ·, ·~:.: : . . . . '. . . ·- .. ~~.}: : i the legal issue raised by this holding is not crucial in the determination of.. . .' . i this appeal. However,· as sections 198 (1) of the C.P.A. and 127 (2) of 1 the Evidence Act Cap. 6 R.E .. 2002, have great significance in the: .. .. ' . . . .. . : administration of criminal justice,. we have• found it apposite to give a· detailed exposition of the law as we ur:iderstand and accept it to be. This. . , . . . . . is all because, we are settled in our rnhids that there is, here, a clear confusion between the correct a'pplication " of ··the' two statutory 5 provisions. In discharging this duty, we · shall not be sailing· in . . unchartered waters as the law on the subject is well settled. We shall only take very recent examples to ·mustrate this. In the case of Godi Kasenegela·v. R., Criminal Appeal No.' 10 of · 2008 (unreported), this Court lucidly held:- II In order tq conduct fair trials, and do justice according to fa~ whe11 trying accused person::,~ cour~'"s have been. given certai'? powers. One such -power. is the_·

powf;r. to summon witnesses under sect!ons 142. (1). qnd 195, 9f the. · ·. Act. For the proper determination of this appeal we have found section 198 (1) of the Act to be c;ompellingly relevant It reads thus:~ ''Every witness in a criminal cause or matter shall, subject to the provisions of a11y ·other written law-to the contrary, be examined upon oath· · or affirmation in 6 accordanc? -JtVith th? pro_visiQFJS of the · Oaths aod. ._ ._ $tatutory ·.. Declarations Act." [~nJphas/s.is oursJ vve have ·1ejfht· that section ·. 127 Of ·the (henceforth the: .Evidence · Att) , tqntains such explicit ilcontrarv pravisionf I/ :The· evidence. Act rI' . tir ail ·courti ' ' applies to ·a//"Y./udlciaf'pr-oci3edings <'' .other thanJjfffils;y tdtirts/'iiPvvh/tH:evkience· ls dr ,,.,, .. · ;-; -_,_ • : / :_ • . ' ; · , -, ,f • : Section 127 (2) of the Evidence Act provides thus:- nwhere in any criminal cause of matterany child of tender years calledas .a witness does not, i!J the opinion .of the· cou~ understand the nature of an oath; his evidence may be ' - - received t:hough not. given upon oath or L • ~ O ...--, •r .,.. affirmation;.if 111 the.opinion of 'the··court, which opinion shall be recorded .in the - proceedings, he is· possessed of sufficient._ 7 intelligence to justify the reception _of his . . evidence; . _and understands · the duty .of speaking the truth._" [Emphasis is

ours], Subsequent to this . decision,. . . ~- .. ·• . the . Court .. . . . .. : , in Anthony..Mwita & Two :. . . . . ~ Others v. R., Criminal -Ap_peal No. 2q4 of 2010 (un·reported) ?uccinctly · stated that :- ' ! . ''' i • • I • 11 Sectiqr7.. 19{1 _{1) o(th~_. Crimi~al Procedure .. , . ,, ... '••' --. Act {Cap 20 -~ RE 2002). (the CPA) requlAes e'(ery • . '•.· r •• '·. • ..:. •· . '. ., . . , . •. :·. _·] : ... :: . : ·: ', . witness in fl cri(l1jnal c:ause or matter .; (sl!bi~Ft :--·· ·. . to '- to give ,evidence either on oath or affirmation in accordance with the provisions of the Oaths and Statutory Declarations Act. (Cap 34 - RE 2002) laLt~-• I,;,,,., ,..,.~- - a I~~, (the· Act). . Section 4 .of the Act and the rules 'l .:.-.4?. . . . . ·· ...' ·.,··; thereunder require that in Judil1al proceedings/ . .. courts administer oaths to witnesses professing . Christianity . . and ~ffirtnations to those who.are not .... Christians.. This ·court has aire;fdy taken th~ .- . . view that IF ~viclence·. of any.::. ·witness is ~- taken without oath or affirmat:iori,. such . ·. 8 evidence is no evi.(l,ence at all and. is to be discarded (See GODI KASENEGEL4 v.. ,R.I' Criminal Appe?JI-No. IO qf 2008 MINJA·.SIGORE ' 0 @ OGORA v. R., Criminal Appeal No .. 54. of 2008 MEMBI STEYANI v. R,. Crirninal Appeal No. 300 . :· ,~. ,' of 2008 andATHUMANiBAKARI v. R/Criminar Appeal ivo. 284 of 2008.

(all unreported)). But if an oath or. affirmation has· . been , tak~n ·but administered irregularlyi is curable under section .<, . .'·' ·. -._ . 9 of t!Je:Ac+:: ;,-_ .. ·• . · The Court reiteratedth}S' ' ,.. . stanq~. in unambiguous. words in the case .. . of Andrea Ngura v. R-, Criminal Appeal No. is of 2013 (unreported). It.'. · • • •, ..- • .' 0: : : ' •. _._.. • . '. ' : . • ~ '. ,: :· .. ::. '· . . .. . . " ' ·, . .- • .. . . .·· ·~;· ·' < instructively saic;I:-. 11 ft is an e/~rnenta,ry. rule of evidence that an exhibit, as part, qf eyidence. (f7 a trial, can on(y be. tendered by a competent . . witness. And in terms . . ,• . . .' ~ of section . 198 of :the. .. Criminal . Procedure Act . . ' ·- . . •·,·,, section 127(1)of thefvidence Act and:section 4 (a) ol . . the. Oaths . ".. : and" Judicial Proceedings :, ~ . Act ~ . . - _: ,.. Cap. }4 R.E 20P2:,_ -~ wi~ness_ in c,ny judicial 9 proceeding must be sworn or affirmed.,;// [Emphasis supplied]. · .. . We - believe that from' these a·uthorities, ·it is clear that the two sections are ind~pendent of each_ oth~r and apply under different :sets of - circumstances. Section 198,_:(_1) of -~~e C:P.A. mandatori!y directs that every competent witne§S: -.in <;:rirninal. proceedings must be sworn _or . affirmed before testifyir,g,_-:uQl?SS there- is another written layv directing . ! otherwise. . .. As clearly ·stated· by thi$ .

Court in G_odi Kasenegala _(supra), · ,._ . _-_ section 127 (2) of the Evidence Act i.s one of those very few written laws. : • •• • •- -~• '•D•• •,, • ... :: -•~• • ?, • o O' : • • • • • • It allows on_ly competent chd9ren of-·tend~~. years,-..that ls, those .. of .. . . · .. :--.• ·, . ..;·· - . . . ~ . . fourteen years of age or-below; -who do not ·understand the nature of an •. '! -· ·- -~- ~ . -.. : ' _oath or affirm.ation to gi~~:evidence witho~t taking -an-oath or '.afffflla!~9~ . • . • . . • . •. ' . •· . .· . ·• . ·. _. ; . . . • • ; ____ -· ~~c . • . if the court is satisfied that ~uch a child witness. is possessed of sufficient intelligence and understands the duty ·-of speaking the truth, which · conditions must exist conjunctively. It goes without saying, therefore, that section 127 (2) of the Evidence-Act does ·not coyer competent adult witnesses -of the category· - of PW4 Ziada .. Her evidence was accordingly irregula~ly· received· by the 10 [ Ii 1.I tria! court. It was not evidence worth- b~ing acted upon in_ a criminal!=. proceeding and the Learned first appellate judge was enjoined.by Jaw .to.~. •: - disco~nt it as urged by the appellants. As he failed to do so, we are noY'{L . . . , . . . . - . . - . - - . .. - II ~ constrained to expungethe'tmsworn/unaffirmed statement of PW4 ZiadaL<. , I . .. . !· from the record. ::i, ·1,. ... ' ~-· '· .. I • J ' .

i:=· I - -· -, _- _, ---.. Regard~ng the remaining two grounds of appea1; the appellants) ..--•· . . r __ ,,_. ' ,, . •'•. I ~. i • ; . had argued that the prosecution had failed to establish .that th~; ,o:::;: t- properties whtch ,had- al~e§Jedly been found in their possession, -a- elaimj,- : ': 0 -;· .- ... -.. --- . . .• . . ·,I they had vehemently ref~ted, _ ~a,d been adequately established to be th~::·_::.::--._, -, +:: :-:< · i . . ,• ,,__-· .·-,... ·"'-. . . . . . . . . ' .. ! stole~_ properties of the complainant (African _Wildlife Foundation). Th~:--·.-:,: Y:< • . . . . . . t'"'·. I- i st appel]a~t speciflcally-i' complained · that. "no special marks wen(·•.- ·· I-. ·; explain~d by PvV2,and~PW3;:' .-_ -r :; ·-_ ;,., I jr•• -;. ....,.•, ,,,·/ In resolving these complaints, the_ learned first appellate· judge ha -- this to say:- 11 Going by the evidence on recant I found that there was no concrete .evidence which showed that-there was breaking at the premises of the African 111/ildlife Foundation. Neither the _ investigator told the trial court th~t he visiter:f the 11 scene of cnn1e/ nor .· an independent · witness testified to have seen the broken building. The scanty evidence about breaking was that of PW2, ' .. ' .. and PW3. Both witnesses told the trial court that it was .one George Patrice who· discovered the breaking. Howeve~ · this George Patrice.... was not

called as a,.·· witness.. ,. 1 would. say. the evidence of PMl2. . ' and . . PWJ. . on breaking . of the . . office was hearsay .and could .. not have formed · . the basis for c6hv1cti6n, N So the appellants were. ~tqu1tted', of the- offeii·ce. · of Breaking into a building. All the same, the lea.rned judge dismissed the appeal against. the theft conviction. This was because:- liAccording, to PW1/ when the first appellant was arrested as a suspect he was foµnd with a cell .phone which was identified by PW2 and PW3 to belong to their boss~ wife. He led "the police • . .•••••, ''-=-• officers and PW2 and PW3 to_ the second. appellant and third accused whom they arrested · 12 1 he· stolen. properties .· were found at the third accuseds hidden (.Jnder the .beck. N On. the basis of this, he 'found thJ s'etond count proved beyond . . .. . . . reasona.ble doubt, hencethfs,.'app-~ai.· ;·_·.· The appellants filed a joint memorandum of appeal, containing three grounds of complaint Th.es·e ~·re that:~ . ··:;.;.; :·· (a) The doctrine of recent possession was wrongly invoked. (b) Their purported . . cautioned •. . statements \• . • wer~i illegally obtained. . . • ·, • ;:·;•,'.' \\ : •' - < • , • I (c) The'ir ·conviction was based on insufficient '.evidence . .•The appell.ant:$ lodgec;l c1_ writt~n ,s_ub_mi5-_sJ9n elabe>rating o'n these grounds · . i' . , .·,· :-· •.: : .. ··,. ·~·-'__

/.:._·i:.\.,.·;.::r:_:_:;.:•:·· . . -.=·:: ... ·.·f: '.'.'·-/<. '. ·' . ; . , :·,. . , ~ .. of complaint. : .. The respond~nt Republic which .w9?. r~presented. before_ us by Ms. Alice Mtenga, learned State Attorney, supported the appeal. on similar· grounds. It was Ms. Mtenga's contention in support of ·the appellants, that the so-called cautioned statements of the ·appellants were illegally • iecorded in contravention of the mandatory provisions of sections 50 and . . . . 51 of the C.P.A. In. e_laboration of ·this, she pointed out th~t while the 1st 13 . . nd · and 2 appellants were arrested on 1 st and 3;d June, 2013 respectively; their cautioned ·statements were· recorded. on 5 th -~nd 4th June; 2013 i I respectively, wel I beyor1d the mahdatory statutory .provided basic ·period - ! · of four (4) hours. She atccfrdin·g1y 'requested -Lis t6 expunge them from) i the record. . . ·: i . We_. have found merit in the submissions of the appellants ahd Ms. ' Mtenga. Although., admittedly,, .. . . ·the. l~a~.ned first . appellate judge did not 'l. ·•· ! ;. . place much; ·1f··any/ ~liance__ on_,.the_ three cauti~ne9 stat~mentsi ·which 1 .. . . · . . . . ; .r were . collectively.· received...,in. .evidence. . . . . . as :, Exh~ . P4, ·we . . . . . .....have no . flicker . of ;_ . . · . . . : . .· . . doubt in our minds . '. ~ that_ they .were- recorded contrary to . the. mandatory_· .

- ... - . . .. . . . . ... . . ~ . . provisions of sections -s·o and 51 of the· Act. ·r:his. . a,~-;,:-~ ~o_uld. have •. :.·,·.:,:· , -:"." . . . . . · justified ·our acceding to the prayer·that they be expunged. But we have ; .< .· , another reason. This is that, the· so-called cautioned statemE!nts~w~{~ 'f]O~ ·:.c:' ,,-~- read out to the_ accused perso~s _if1: court.. It goes without saying, therefore, that Exh. P4 _were not only illegally recorded but also : irregularly received as evidence. We accordingly .expunge theri! from t_he . -_ ..... -- ~ecord. See, for instance, Roland Thomas _@ MaJangamba y. R.; _· Criminal Appeal No. 308 of 2007, Petro Teophan v. R., _Crimi~al Appeal . - No. 58 of 2012, luma Myama Kinana & f'nother 1V• _R.; Criminal . . ' Appeal No. 133 of 2011 (all unreported). 14 According to. the pa'rticulats of the second count, the following properties of African Wildlife.Foundation, ,were allegedly stolen were:- . ! 11 One con1puter laptop make IBM valued at Tsh~. 1r2B0r000/--r two digital cameras make .. t Panasonic lumix valued at I shs. 960/000/ / three range finder valued· at Tshs. 1r440r000/ I' one .... ,, " '. • i I solar pane/1ow valued at Tshs. 64/000/-/ three receiver Hoxes. valued at Tshs. ,:1;440/000/ >t f three binoc,);?vallJed ~t tshs.: 1/440/000/ / two · air mattress Va/lied at Tshs; 448,000/.:;_1 ·two bags ' . of·· c!othf;s valued· at 1shs,

320/000)=r two . . ' compasses valued at I shs. 480/000/-r · two geographical position system . "GPS" valued at Tshs. 1/920/000/~r one DISC player make Philips . ' valued at Tshs. 128/000/-/ one video camera ·. . ' n1ake JVC valued at Tshs. 800/000/=r ooe ·watch valued.at Tshs. 15,0V0/ r .three clifferent clothes valued at Tshs." 87,000/-/ "one CD ho/def valued .... at. Tshs, ·24/000/ r .one hard driver cover make 15 I I Icon valued at tshs. 16/000/=:, four parirs of I shoes valued at tshs. 320/000/-/· forty one CO valved at Tshs. . 65.,600/=/ _two belts_ valued at . 1shs. 20/000/ / one binocular cover :valued at' iI I 1shs. 16/000/ / two adopter power covers I. i:- valued at I shs. 32, 000/-, one Air matress _cover . valued ta I shs. ·20,000;-/ ·one computer mouse 1- Valued ·at ·-··Tshs. :· 25,0001 ,' fifteen·_ adopter 1 connectors valued·atTshs. 24,000/ , one cellular-· I . . I~- ' - phone 1J7ake Motorola valued·~t- Tshs. 112,000/-. · anc! two· n1~iiio1<· cards· ot dit11(at: cam~r~-.a~r;J . video camera :val~edat:Tihs. 384~000/ ·/all to_tal . .. . . ·. . ~ ., . . valued at Tshs.: 1/880600/= the· properties o( . : AFRICAN WILDLIFE FOUNDATION."··. We must quickly pornt out that we have found no iota of admissible evidence ·on record . to prove th.e. theft of these articles. . . . . . . ... What . - there· fs on record, is the hearsay evidence of PW2 Peter . . . Prqsp~r afld_

P~3 Sailapo. . . . Maijo, yvhich evidence the _learned f!rst appell~t~ judge found Jacking i·n 1 cogency to . support the first count. Ad_mittedly, n·one of these two . witnesses visited the scene of the alleged crime _to ascertain the types 16 and quantity of the properties which had. been stolen, ·if any breaking and theft occurred at alL They were recounting what they had allegedly been told by one George. We shaU demon?trate. -._. · PW2 Peter had this t9 say:~ . 0n 26/05/2013; 'one fellow George Patrick :went 11 there and found the 'doors· and windows broken and ·varidUs · pr:dpe_rties valued at · ·1shs; j i I j .. ,--_:_ 11/880/600/ . .· ·stdlen.··rhey include 3 receivers/ z I iI I I big one sinal( 1 digital camera/· 1· laptop, 1· wall· · · !l r - I f- cloi::~ '1 hatd ddJe;:·;2 inatl:resses green in co/00 1 l- i ,,l big black bag;··2-wrists belts~ 3 pairs· dfshoes & 1~ I. others .a.:. We reported at TANAPA office. We were I ,.I i . . . ! ! advised to'tepori: a{fv/injingu Police~· We were to say who we ·were·suspecting.·~, . . . . On his part, PW3.Sailapo; h~d. this to tell the trial court:-.. •< ' • non 26/05/2013 . . George Patrick went to do ' ' cleanness at our office.· He found two · windows broken and properties stolen. We .. reported at TANAPA. The stolen properties are a laptop/ 17 camera/ · mattress and others. We went to l'Viinjingi Police... v t • It is too

evident from the above two extracts. that no iota of' ' evidence was given to the effect that a Motorola cell phone, allegedly : . i found in the possession of the first appellant- belonging to African yYildlife ; Foundation, ·had been stolerJ . Jµrthermore_, none of the stolen properties l.-.'·:. 'f allegedly recovered at .the: ho~e of the-third a~cuse.d (in the trial, court} [ . ' . .. '.. , . I . . were : shown · to · eith~r PW2_ peter_ or ·PW3---~5?Hapo for- positive t i • . i . ! identification.·in .. court.. The paucity.pf . . .. ' - . . th~. ·evidence . . .Qf i PW2 and PW3. on.['! what was actually stolen_ ,a.-~d. fa.ilure to .exhilJit the. r~covered properties : . " '; .' . . . .• . · .. · . • .• • . .. l • . . for the purposes- of being •identifie9; _left the ~eco'nd ¢ouri(unpro_ved ~nd /. ' · as such the .doctrine of rece_nt possession was. wrongly invoked .. her~. . ... ., Indeed, the conviction for theft· was· grounded.· on purely. hearsay ! I evidence. We ·cannot safely su.stai'n it .. i. In the light of th~ above findings, we allow the first and third ~rour1ds of appeal, and accordingly the entire -~ppeal. We. proceed to . · quash and set aside the conviction· of the appellants: for the offence of' theft. 18. • "' ,As shown at the outset, the appellants were sentenced to seven ' . years imprisonment by the sentencing magistrate. We have chosen t-o (-. use the

phrase. "sentencing: - magistrate' - . - .. instead - . .of the phrase "trial 1I. _ magistrate' deiiberately. Thi~ is· because, · although the trial was._;:_,. ' I, • . 1 conducted by one " R . ~ S e n i o r Resident Magistrate'-:,- who r ' also composed and delivered the trial court's judgment, the ·sentences;. i :. for unknown reasons, were -passed by ·one "G. P. Ngaeja - Resident ,t ,-_ /11agistrate." We have found this to be highly irregular in te·rms of sectiOl)-l·,;:-· ... - 214 (1) of the C.P.A. Reasons· must. ·.alvvays· be giv~n ·and recorded, . ih !f : _: .. ·..:· ··,. . ·. : .. . -. . ·.. . . i' case of change trial magistrates, even for the purposes of passing r-: : _, sentence, for ·.that" .ma"tter. See, for 'instan"ce, Shaban·i Seif & .Said. ; . . Abdallah @ Cheka Chek~ -v: ·R:, Criminal Appeal No. 215 of 2015l: i·,;: M/S Georges Centre ltd.' v. The ·Hon. Attorney General anct,. Another, Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2015 (both_ unreported), etc. f:, f. i Was b::::~d~: t::n:::~~:;ep:e::e:~ ::~~:~:~da :::::~n:::i~::~~~ I ) ·• I In terms of section 170 (1) of the C.P.A. he could. not impose a ~entence: / . of imprisonment exceeding five (5) years. The seven year jail sentence l ' . . ' ( was accordingly patently illegal.- 19 l I1- .. All said and done, we allow :this appeal in its entirety. ,A.s alieady 1-· I . . . L shown above, the C<?nviction. for theft _is q_uashed and

set aside. P..s a \: <;oiollary the prison sentence · is aiso qu_ashed and set aside. The appellants .are to be releas~d· from prison forthwith unless t_hey are · otherwise lawfully detained. DATED at ARUSH,( this A.th day ofAugust, 2016 .. .:E; M..K.: RUTAJ<ANGWA · ·,·.JUSTICE Q.f APPEAL ., : E. . A.. KILEO · ·. ·JUSTICE OF APPEAL · S.,A. ·MASSATT . ,, JUSTICIE OF APPl:Ai..· L. - I- ( . I I ' <:'.'. E. . ··oeP·UTY R ··COURTO 20