19931108 TZCA Arusha3

,c AT A.RUSI-IA f' ,! \ .' (COlWI·I CRIMINAL AffEAL NO. 115 OF 19<"J.3 l I' 1.13THALIT3 HSANGI , . . . • • , , • • APm..LANT AND THE .llEPUDLIC • • • • • • • • • • , J.ESPO!'DENT (Appeal .from the sentence of the High Court o! Tanzania at Arusha) (~~J..,_Munuo. J,,.s.) dated the 11th day of November 1991 · in Criminal ApPeal No, 24,!_gf.!221 JU;)GME!':T OF THE COT.BT 1, MMAPllANI I J .A.,_t .convicted by the District Court of Moshi of four counts -of u t : t ~ .t;aJ.se documents, three counts of o b t ~ money b-Jr ta.J.ss -pre~Qe ~ ~ ~ ' . · d attempting t-, .obtain zooney by false pretences. ·These offences were c/s 342 1 c/s 302 arul c/s 381 of the Penal C~e respectively. F-OJ:.' every· ' ~ e,££.ance, l.e i:as sentencoo to :imprisonment for a term ef three years. The ..~·· sentences were to run concuren{ly. because one of the fellm-1 convicts was lame arlli the learned Resident· since all the accused persons were in the same boat; so to speak~ they be treated equaly. So the rest benefitted .from the mitigation of the lame convict. ' ~~~:i-rµ~l:!:;J,!~~~~C-ii,/~;zr..l.,_~;·~f"':""r-:t-r-i,Ao-1--r••,...i-ti•-;--• 1•- I I, 'f - ,· The Director of Public Pl·osecutions, on behalf appealed against the inadequacy of the sentences and the decision of the •,\ ' iearned Resident Magistrate to suspend. the terms of imprisonment for all the accused persons, The I-Iigh Court of

,Tanzania at Arusha (MlTNUO, J.) alloued the appeal. The punishment .rith respect to the present. appellant w~ raised to impri~nment for a term of five years f~1• every one of the eieht offences. The te;~ms Here ordered. to run concurent:J.y and: this ti.'11e 1 they were to be se:;.•ved in prison, The learned Judge did ~o becauoe the crimes were ~etrat~d a ~ t . a pa:t>astatal organisation MC.1 7 t.here.f-ore:. t.lffl ofienc.es came under the Bini.mum Sentences Act, 19?2. Also, Nunuo, J. feund that as the amounts involved in every count eJcceed.ed Shs,. loo/•r of that Act. The appellant is ae,7ieved by the d.ecisfon of Nunuo, J. He appeared 1ear11ed State Attorney, No point of laN uas disclosed in this second appeal. The sentences awardecJ. to the appellant were the JirlmJnum for the offancea comm;i.tt..od e.gaj.nst. a parastat.al. organisation.· The appeal is .. -~ devoid of any merit. However; on c;oing tl1rou2)1 the court record: we have found. that the ·, learned Resident Na3"i::,trate forgot to order the accused persons to compensate the relevant parastatal orLanisation the loss it has suffered as a result of the offences committed against it. The High Court, too, ,· •verlooked that omission. Ue could bave stepped into the shoes of the High Court and do t1hat it could have d•ne, by using its revisional powers, ... /3 .3 with respect to the appellant: as the Republic did

not appeal the !rr~r. H01-10ve;.~" since the ap~:>ellant was convicted together with (lther persons not before us 7 anrl since all these person' have tfl cont:1:':l.bute towards the amount to be cotnI?ensated, ue at~ lr the opinion that purSUB.l:lt to Rule 36 o!' the Co&urt, of Aptjeal RuJ..es, th~ mattlr should. be serit back to the Hir;h Court. for the ueceosary ordeNa The appeal is dismissed. The Decord is sent back tl 'the High Court H.. I-I. IO:SANGA ,,ll!/3TICE OF APPEAL I A. S , L • 11ANA:XI.ANI JUSTICE QF _!PJ;EA,L D.Z~ LUDUVA JUSTICE OF APPJWIL, I cartj.fy tllat, tb.is is a ·true copy of the original, ~ ,_C_.4-_ _ _ _ ____,,(,:---.::..... -----°-+::;~ C../ E. J. NYAM.ASAGA..'lA DEPUTY RE'.}IS'l'::l.All