final Korneli August Nguma

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA SUB-REGISTRY OF MOSHI AT MOSHI CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 9512 OF 2024 (Appeal from Judgment of the District Court of Moshi at Moshi dated 4th October 2023 in Criminal Case No. 28 of 2023) KORNEL AUGUST NGUMA ……………….……………………APPELLANT VERSUS THE REPUBLIC…………………………………………….…..RESPONDENT JUDGMENT 16th July & 13th August, 2024 A.P. KILIMI, J.: The appellant, Kornel August Nguma, was charged at the District Court of Moshi at Moshi for unnatural offence contrary to section 154 (1) (a) and (2) of the Penal Code, Cape 16 R.E. 2022 “Penal Code”. The particulars alleged by the prosecution thereat were to the effect that on 12th day of January, 2023 at Marangu Komela area within Moshi District in Kilimanjaro Region, the appellant did have carnal knowledge of the victim a boy aged 11 years. At the trial court the Republic paraded six witnesses and one exhibit, whereas the appellant fended himself. In conclusion of the whole evidence 1 tendered, the appellant was found guilty, convicted and sentenced for life imprisonment, also he was ordered to be whipped six strokes in his buttocks and further to compensate the victim at the tune of Tshs. One Million (1,000,000) for the injuries he sustained. Before embarking on the merit of the appeal, I find it suitable to narrate a brief background leading to this appeal as discerned from the trial court record, the victim XY (who for purpose of protecting his identity shall be referred to as "PW4"), was a standard IV pupil at Komela Primary school, on 20/01/2023 after a class wherein the lesson was education on natural offences, reported to his teacher one Glory Rumuli that the appellant had carnal knowledge of him against the order of nature, PW4 also mentioned other four pupils of the same school whom also the appellant did the same act. Those mentioned children upon being asked they admitted the said allegation that those evil acts were done to them. Subsequently, the meeting of parents was convened and confirmed what was done to their children, as a result on 21/01/2023 the appellant was arrested by village chairperson, sent to Himo police station and interrogated. There the victims were issued with PF3 and sent to Himo 2 health centre, the record further reveals only PW4 was medically examined, and the doctor “PW6” discovered he had neither bruises nor blood, but found his anal sphincter muscles relaxed thus could not control stool. In his defense the appellant vehemently denied the allegation and said since the victim used to pass near his home on the way to school, on 12/01/2023 he saw the victim with other children being carnally known against order of nature by another person who solicited them to name him as a culprit of the said act. Then later the victim’s grandmother approached his mother and told her that he was the one who did the said evil acts to the victim. In considering the evidence tendered the trial court found the appellant guilty of the offence charged, convicted and sentenced him forthwith as afore stated. The appellant has preferred the instant appeal basing on six grounds which can be paraphrased as follows, first; the trial court did not consider that there was variance of the charge and the evidence adduced. Second; the learned trial court erred in law and fact when failed to note that the 3 credibility of the victim was shaken by inability of naming a suspect at the earliest opportunity. Third; the trial court failed to note that the principles stipulated under section 127 (2) of the evidence Act Cap 6 R.E 2022 were violated. Fourth; the trial court erred in law and factual analysis when he relied on weak, contradictory, inconsistency with material discrepancies and uncorroborated prosecution evidence. And fifth; the trial court erred in law and fact when he failed to consider that the charge against the appellant was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. At the hearing of the appeal, the appellant appeared in person unrepresented. The respondent/republic was represented by Mr. John Mgave, learned State Attorney. In supporting his appeal, the appellant started by explaining the first ground of appeal that the charge which was laid against him was at variance with the evidence on record. This is because the charge sheet shows offence against the victim occurred on 12/01/2023 but none of the prosecution witnesses testified to that effect. Referring to the particular testimonies of prosecution witnesses, the appellant submitted that the victim testified that after he was penetrated, the next day he disclosed the 4 ordeal to the head teacher. He further submitted that the victim’s teacher testified as (PW1) and in her testimony she stated that she became aware of the offence against the victim on 20/01/2023. It was his submission therefore that, based on those testimonies it means the alleged offence occurred on 19/01/2023 and not on 12/01/2023 as alleged in the charge sheet. Submitting further the appellant stated that the confusion on the exact date of the occurrence of the said offence did not end there, but also it was manifested in the medical doctor’s testimony (PW6) who testified that on 21/01/2023 he did medical examination to the victim, and discovered that, the said offence had occurred a week ago prior to his examination. He submitted therefore that calculating from 21/01/2023 backwards, one week falls on 14/01/2024 which is different from the date indicated in the charge sheet which is 12/01/2023. To support his stance, he referred the case of Abel Masikiti vs Republic [2015] TZCA 219 (TANZLII). Submitting on the second ground of appeal, the appellant stated that the trial Magistrate grossly erred in law and fact in failing to note that, the 5 act of PW4 not disclosing the ordeal against him to anybody at the earliest possible moment cannot attract the confidence of his testimony before the court of law. Explaining the point, the appellant stated that it was the evidence of PW4 that he had been penetrated almost four times but all these times he never disclosed the information to anybody not even his parents. He argued that, it is now well settled that, the credibility of a witness is enhanced by the ability of a witness to name a suspect at the earliest opportunity. Referring to the case of Sadiki Hamis @ Rushikana and 2 others vs Republic Criminal Appeal No. 381 CF 382 CF 383 of 2017, it was the appellant’s further submission that the victim’s act of remaining mute for quite a long time without disclosing the ordeal against him at the earliest possible opportunity casts a shadow of doubts on his reliability as a witness. For that reason, it was the appellant’s prayer that this court finds and holds that PW4’s evidence cannot sustain appellant’s conviction. On the third ground of appeal where the appellant challenged the trial court’s compliance to the provision of section 127(2) of the Evidence Act, it was the appellant’s submission that the current interpretation of 6 section 127(2) of the Evidence Act, requires that, before the reception of the evidence of a child of tender age, the court must test whether the witness child understand the meaning and nature of an oath. If the answer is positive then the child witness will give his or her evidence on oath, if the answer is negative, then his/her evidence will be taken without an oath but he/she will promise to the court to tell the truth and not to tell lies. He submitted that in the case at hand the learned trial Magistrate conducted what he termed as an inquiry to test whether the child witness possess sufficient intelligence to testify. He argued however that this was not the requirement under the law. He buttresses his position by referring the case of Issa Salum Nambaluka and Geofrey Wilson vs. Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 322 of 2021 and submitted that the situation in the cited case is similar to the case at hand. Therefore, it was his prayer for this Court to note the aforementioned shortfall in the prosecution case and expunge the evidence of the victim (PW4) from the record. Advancing his contention the appellant argued that, if the evidence of PW4 suffers the fate of being expunged from the record, then there will not be any remaining evidence to sustain his conviction and that the 7 prosecution case will stand unproved. Thus, he prayed this court to allow his appeal forthwith. In his response to the first ground of appeal, the learned state attorney submitted that there was no variance between the charge sheet and the evidence as adduced by the appellant. It was his submission that although it is true that the victim (PW4) did not mention the date the incident occurred, it was his view that considering his age possibilities of forgetting the date may happen as human minds are infallible in the sense that not all the time one may remember everything. To bolster his stance, he cited the case of Issa Hassan Uki vs Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 129 of 2017 [2018] TZCA 361(TANZLII) which observed that a witness is not expected to be right in minute details when retelling his story, therefore, he echoed in this case by contending that, the child in this matter was 12 years old thus, not all times he was capable of remembering dates of the incident happened and that’s why he only stated that the appellant did sodomize him four times. Moreover, on the same ground the learned state attorney argued that, despite the fact that the victim never mentioned the date stated in 8 the charge sheet, the help came from the accused himself who stated in his defense that on 12/01/2023 he saw the victim and one Aidan Urio sodomizing one another. He submitted that although the appellant was trying to exonerate himself from the liability that he was not the one who did the act but the victim named him to be the one who did such act. Therefore, the learned state attorney was of the view that the appellant’s evidence acts as corroboration on the fact that the victim was sodomized on that date and proves the appellant to commit the offence charged. In regard to the credibility of the victim’s testimony which was claimed in second ground, the learned state attorney argued that it was true that the victim PW4 stated that he reported the incident to the head teacher about being sodomized by the appellant, but initially the victim stated that he mentioned the incident to his grandmother and that his grandmother had promised to report it to the mother of the appellant. Therefore, that was sufficient to establish the earliest possible reporting of the matter though the day is not known but the victim did report to his grandmother and later at school. 9 In respect to violation of section 127(2) of the Evidence Act claimed by the appellant in the third ground, the learned state attorney relied on the case of Godfrey Wilson vs Republic Criminal Appeal No. 168/2018) [2019]TZCA 109 and contended that the above law provides for two conditions, one; it allows the child of the tender age to give evidence without oath or affirmation, two; before giving evidence, such child is mandatorily required to promise to tell the truth and not lies. It was therefore his submission that in the present matter the record of trial court proceeding shows at page 15 that the victim (PW4) did make a declaration that he will speak the truth and nothing false. Then by that declaration the Attorney said he fulfilled the requirement stated above. Thus, prayed this court declare this ground has no merit hence should be dismissed. On the fourth ground of appeal where the appellant claimed that his conviction was based on weak, contradictory and inconsistency with material discrepancy and uncorroborated evidence, the learned counsel responded that the appellant has not outlined any inconsistence whatsoever that has occurred during examination of witnesses at the trial court. Further he submitted that the evidence of prosecution was 10 corroborated by the defense evidence of the appellant himself who at one point agreed to have been at the crime scene on 12/01/2024 and that he witnessed the victim being sodomized by another person though he did not state what was he doing when the victim was being sodomized which leaves a doubt on his defense. He further stated that the evidence from the victim was sufficient to describe the act he did to the victim and hence he prayed for this ground to be dismissed. Responding to the fifth ground of appeal wherein the appellant claimed that the prosecution case was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. The learned state attorney contended that the trial court was right, the victim clearly testified how he was sodomized and that he identified the appellant as the person who did the act because he knew the appellant very well as they reside on the same area and that he is a close relative. He further said the same was supported by the evidence of the appellant on his defense when he acknowledged being a relative of the victim. The learned state attorney further submitted that as it is the requirement of the law in sexual offences such as the present one, the prosecution had a duty to establish that there was penetration of the penis 11 of the appellant to the anus of the victim and that the same was established. He also submitted that, prosecution had another duty of proving that it was the appellant and no other who sodomized the victim. He stated that the said duty was well discharged through the evidence of the victim himself at page 15 of the trial court proceedings. It was the learned counsel’s further submission that the trial court never doubted PW4’s testimony as he was a witness of truth thus believed, this resulted the trial court to satisfy that the prosecution managed to prove its case against the appellant hence his conviction and sentence. For that reason, the learned state attorney prayed this ground to be dismissed for want of merit. Having considered the grounds deliberated above, in my view of them the second, fourth and fifth grounds since they are interrelated are condensed in one issue which is whether the charge against the appellant at the trial was proved beyond reasonable doubt. The rest of the grounds remained to be dispensed separately. For convenient purpose I will start with the third ground, which vent the issue whether the trial court failed to note that the principles stipulated under section 127 (2) of the evidence Act Cap 6 R.E 2022 were violated at 12 the trial court. In resolving this contentious issue at hand, I find it essential and logical to reproduce the above provision that; 127 (2) A child of tender age may give evidence without taking an oath or making an affirmation but shall, before giving evidence, promise to tell the truth to the court and not to tell any lies. According to the wording above, it settled provide for two conditions. One, it allows the child of a tender age to give evidence without oath or affirmation. Two, before giving evidence, such child is mandatorily required to promise to tell the truth to the court and not to tell lies. (See cases of Godfrey Wilson v. Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 168 of 2018, Hamisi Issa v. Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 274 of 2018 and Issa Salum Nambaluka v. Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 272 of 2018 and George Lucas Marwa vs Republic Criminal Appeal No.382 of 2019(all unreported). 13 In view of the above law, as regards to what transpired prior to the recording of the testimony of PW4, I find apposite to reproduce evidence found on page 14 and 15 of the trial court record which reads that: “Court: Under provision of section 127 (4) witness is a child of tender age, to be specifically the child do not understand nature and obligation of an oath as he know nothing about religion. This court therefore conduct inquiry to determine as to whether the child witness possess sufficient intelligence to testify and answer questions put to him. Sgd: E. Y. PHILLY – SRM 12/06/ 2023 INQUIRY QN: Whom do you reside with. ANS: I do reside with my grandfather and grandmother QN: Who is another person residing with you? ANS: I do reside with my father too. QN: What is the name of your father? Ans: My father is Joseph QN: Mention four subjects you study at school. ANS: Civics, Mathematics, Kiswahili, English Language, Social science. QN: Name four friends of yours ANS: Elivis, Samwel, Thobias and Revocatus. 14 QN: Do you speak the truth or lie? ANS: I do speak the truth. Court: Through inquiry conducted, this court is satisfied the child witness possess sufficient intelligence to testify the truth and answer the questions put to him. Therefore, the witness will testify upon making declaration of speaking the truth. Sgd: E. Y. PHILLY - SRM 12/06/ 2023 DECLARATION OF SPEAKING THE TRUTH I PW4 do hereby declare that I will speak the truth and nothing false. PW4 UPON DECLARATION STATED XXD By State Attorney:” In my view of the above proceeding, first, the trial court exercised its duty to inquire whether the child understands the nature of oath or affirmation, in order to ascertain if his evidence will be received under oath or affirmation, and second, if not, then the child witness should be required to promise to tell the truth and not tell lies. The trial court after the said simple inquiry found the witness should make declaration of telling 15 the truth. I have considered the declaration of PW4 above and I am of settled view that when he said I will speak the truth and nothing false meant the same as promising to tell the truth and not to tell lies. In the circumstance I find the law was accordingly complied with. Therefore, I find this ground devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. The next ground for my determination is the first ground, which cast the issue whether the trial court erred in law and fact not to consider that there was variance of the charge and the evidence adduced. It is a trite law the prosecution is required to bring evidence to prove the particulars of the offence in the charge sheet. This is because the accused person needs to understand the allegations against him through the charge and specifically the particulars of the offence stated therein. (See Peter Ndiema and Another v. Republic, Criminal Appeal No.469 of 2015 [2018] TZCA 574 (TANZLII); and John Leon Kimario v. Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 105 of 2021 [2024] TZCA 404 (TANZLII), In John Leon Kimario (supra) the court stated as follows: 16 "a charge is the document which initiates criminal proceedings against an accused person. It is from the particulars of the charge wherein the prosecution is called upon by the court to tender evidence in establishm ent of the offence alleged to have been com m itted by the accused person. In the same vein, it is from the particulars of the charge, in which the accused person is required to defend himself". [Emphasis added] Moreover, the above principle of the court was derived from Sections 132 and 135 of the Criminal Procedure Act Cap. 20 “CPA” which require the charge to contain a statement of offence or offences with which the accused is charged, and the particulars as may be necessary for providing information regarding the nature of the offence charged. For clarity I reproduce only the provision of section 132; “132. Every charge or information shall contain, and shall be sufficient if it contains, a statement of the specific offence or offences with which the accused person is charged, together with such particulars as may be 17 necessary for giving reasonable information as to the nature of the offence charged.” In order to ascertain whether the above law was abided, now let me look onto the charge sheet whether it tally with the evidence adduced at the trial, and whether the adduced evidence is credible and truthful to prove the charge against the appellant. At the trial court record the charge sheet is found immediately from the cover page and it reads as follows; "CHAR GE STATEM ENT OF OFFENCE UNNATURAL OFFENCE: Contrary to section 154 (1) (a) and (2) of the Penal Code [Cap. 16 R.E.2022]. P AR TI CULAR S OF OFFENCE KORNELI S/O AUGUST NGUMA, on the 12 th day of January 2023 at Marangu Komela area within Moshi District in Kilimanjaro Region did have carnal knowledge of one PW4 (in pseudonym to hide his identity) a boy aged 11 years old against the order of nature. Signed at Moshi this 06th day of February, 2023” [Emphasis added] 18 According to the testimony of victim PW4 which is seen at page 15 and 16, he did not mention the date depicted in the charged but said and I quote; “Kornel did the act to m e five (5) tim es. As accused proceeded 1 decided to disclose to head teacher. But when the accused did sodomize me four times. I disclose to m y grandm other. She promised to disclose to the mother of Korneli. Korneli gave to me nothing.” [Emphasis added] It is clear from the above, the victim is saying the alleged act was done to him on different dates, moreover, as alluded by the appellant in his submission no witness stated the specific date as per charge sheet, as per record PW1 victim’s teacher said it was on 20/1/2023 when PW4 revealed the alleged acts and mentioned his fellow children who were also victims, then the appellant was arrested on the next day and later PW1 said was called at the village office, and after that they went to police station for interrogation. However, this is different to what the victim’s grandpa one Johakim Edward Mtui (PW3) said at page 13 of the record, because he said 19 it was on 12/01/2022, which is the date even before the commission of the offence alleged, is when he was called at the village office, and told the alleged offence, thereafter went to Himo police station and later to the Health Centre for medical checkup. Whereas PW6 a medical doctor said he attended the victim PW4 on 21/01/2023. Despite of above discrepancies on dates stated by above witnesses, I need to state, at the outset, that I am aware of the settled position of the law, that the best evidence of this kind of offence comes from the victim. This is from analogous case of Selemani Makumba vs Republic [ 2002] T.L.R 379. However, the said evidence of the victim to remain the best and intact should not be taken as Scriptural Truth, but the evidence must be credible. (see Method Leodiga Komba @ Todi & Another v. R, Criminal Appeal No. 150 of 2021 and John Leon Kimario v. Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 105 of 2021 (Both unreported). Nonetheless, as provided by the authorities above in respect to the charge, when the date of the commission of the offence is depicted vividly in the charge like in this case at hand, the said date becomes among the elements of the offence to be proved by evidence. In the wording of the court of appeal in its recent case of Matiku s/o Thomas vs Republic 20 Criminal Appeal No. 638 of 2022 [2024] TZCA 666 (TANZLII) the court had this to say; “it is crystal clear that among the elements of the offence charged, the date on which the offence was allegedly committed, is shown to be on 29/7/2016. This, therefore, was among the facts which ought to be proved.” In this case at hand, the charge sheet as alluded above portrays that the offence charged was committed on 12th day of January 2023, the evidence of the victim PW4 is not settled on this date but alleges merely said the act was done to him five times. However, according to the evidence of PW1 and the victim himself said that this act was not done only to PW4, but also to other four children mentioned by the victim to his teacher who were called and admitted to be also victims of the offence charged against the appellant. However, they were not procured as witnesses at the trial court, even victim’s grandmother whom PW4 reported to her of the incident was not brought as witness. In view thereof I think these witnesses, either could have made the victim evidence more reliable or might have said one or more of the days of the commission of the offence out of the five times stated by PW4. Then it could have been 21 known from them whether the above date in the charge sheet was among the dates the crime was committed. Principally it is well known rule that the prosecutor is under prima facie duty to call those witnesses who from their connection with the transaction in question are able to testify to material facts. If such witnesses are within reach but are not called without sufficient reason being shown, the court may draw an inference adverse to the prosecution. (see Azizi Abdallah vs Republic [1991] TLR 71 and Mashimba Dotto @ Lukubanija Vs Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 317 of 2013 unreported). Thus, in the circumstances it is my view the prosecution cannot remain unshaken. To mitigate the above, the learned state attorney in his submission invited me to consider that the evidence of prosecution was corroborated by the defense evidence of the appellant himself who at one point agreed to have been at the crime scene on 12/01/2023 and that he witnessed the victim being sodomized by another person though he did not state what he was doing when the victim was being sodomized which leaves a doubt on his defense. 22 It is true the appellant mentioned the date depicted in the charge sheet, but on my view at this juncture, the point for understanding is whether the same means the offence was committed by him on the same day. Since, it is cardinal principle of criminal law that the duty of proving the charge against an accused person always lies on the prosecution. In the case of John Makolebela Kulwa Makolobela and Eric Juma alias Tanganyika [2002] T.L.R. 296 the Court held that: "A person is not guilty of a criminal offence because his defence is not believed; rather, a person is found guilty and convicted of a criminal offence because of the strength of the prosecution evidence against him which establishes his guilt beyond reasonable doubt" I have considered the ratio stated above, I may say one exception available for the accused person to prove the case against himself is by confession voluntarily to the offence charged. According to the evidence of appellant in his defence he did not confess to the charged offence, he testified what he saw on the material day other people committing crime and no proof that he lied. 23 However, mentioning of the said date was not considered as corroboration by the trial court judgment in finding the guilty of the appellant, it was the proof of the charge which convicted the appellant, therefore this is the new matter introduced by the learned state attorney. But be as it may, it will be incorrect for this court to believe merely on date mentioned by the appellant and disbelieve the other evidence he said in his defence, in my view are inseparable, thus the principle in John Makolebela Kulwa Makolobela (supra) remain as a stance in this argument, therefore the same cannot corroborate the prosecution case. Hence this contention devoid of merit and dismissed. Back to the ground in respect to variance of charge and evidence. In my considered opinion, since the evidence above vent that the offence was committed severally on different dates, this means the alleged offence was committed on a wide range of dates, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove that indeed the offence was committed within that range. Therefore, it was imperative upon the prosecution to amend the charge so as to reflect that such offence might have been committed on diverse dates, for instance, particulars could have depicted on an unknown date 24 and time in January, or between January and February or whatever could have showed the range of time which in its apprehension could have reflected evidence available from the victim, which envisages the same act was done to him on several occasions as alluded above. The above directions are the requirement of the law and was bolstered by the court of appeal in the case of John Leon Kimario (supra) citing its earlier case of Abel Masikiti vs Republic Criminal Appeal 24 of 2015) [2015] TZCA 219 (TANZLII) had this to say; "....in a number of cases in the past, this Court held that it is incumbent upon the Republic to lead evidence showing that the offence was committed on the date alleged in the charge sheet, which the accused was expected and required to answer. I f there is any variance or uncertainty in the dates, then the charge m ust be am ended in term s of section 234 of the CP A. I f this is not done the preferred charge w ill rem ain unproved, and the accused shall be entitled to an acquittal. Short of that a failure of justice will occur" 25 [Emphasis added] Having considered the above principles of law, my observations and the evidence on record, the fact that the evidence of PW4 merely pointed he was sodomized five times in relation to the charge which stipulates exactly the date of commission of the offence, I am settled the dates of commission of the offence were uncertain, therefore evidence adduced at the trial was in variation with the charge and should be resolved in favour of the appellant. I am aware of the provision of section 234(3) of CPA which entails that variance between the charge and the evidence adduced in support of it with respect to the time at which the alleged offence was committed is not material, and the charge need not be amended for such variance if it is proved that the proceedings were in fact instituted within the time. Nonetheless I would like to say each case should be decided in its own circumstance. (Stanley Murithi Mwaura vs Republic [2021] TZCA 688 (TANZLII). 26 Under the circumstances of this matter, the facts that the victim said he was carnally known against the order of the nature more than four times, this means there is a range of the said acts as alluded above which remained uncertain, however the charge sheet is very specific on the date of commission of the crime, under such situations I cannot hold without doubt that the said date charged date was within the time of that range which actually was not stated. Thus, in the premise I continue insisting this doubt ought to be resolved in favour of the appellant. Consequently, I find this ground meritorious and is hereby upheld and sustained. Back to the remaining three grounds which I condensed as above into one ground because it raises a cross-cut issue on whether the charge against the appellant at the trial was proved beyond reasonable doubt. Basing on the deliberation of the above ground, these grounds become simple to determine, according to the decided ground above in favour of the appellant, it was an incumbent for the prosecution after comprehend that the evidence shows the offence was committed on five different times to amend the charge to cover the range of those diverse dates. Thus, by not 27 doing so, I am of considered view the evidence adduced by the prosecution at the trial court did not prove the charge against the appellant. Therefore, for the foregoing I find the prosecution at the trial did not prove the case charged beyond all reasonable doubts. In conclusion thereof, I allow the appeal in its entirety. Consequently, I quash the conviction of the appellant and set aside the sentences imposed on him. I order that the appellant, Kornel August Nguma be released from prison custody forthwith unless he is held there for some other lawful cause. It is so ordered. DATED and DELIVERED at Moshi this 13th day of August, 2024 X JUDGE Signed by: A. P. KILIMI 28 Court: Judgment delivered today on 13th day of August, 2024 in the presence Ms. Angel Mshana learned state Attorney for the respondent and Applicant present in person. Sgd; A. P. KILIMI JUDGE 13/08/2024 Court: Right of Appeal explained. Sgd; A. P. KILIMI JUDGE 13/08/2024 29