20020627 TZHC mBEYA

IN THE HIGH COli!{T OF. TANZ.\NIA · ·, , .. · . .,JtT MBEYA· ,j .. .:';;r-rrsc. · CRUITNAL 1\PPLIC.-lTION NO .. 10, OF .200; ·-··. ·:.-: -( 'Ori'ginal • Crimina,l .. .. .. ·.-r Caqe No. ~ 1 of · 2000 . of the District C°.W.::t of Rungwe a,-t 'l'ukuy1;t) 1. - ii.LI.NANINE. MWAISUM0 ) 2. :FREDDY MWAFUNGO .· · ·•. ) · 3• N,IB0TH MWAM;\.LUl:)'I ) • • • • • • :.• ..•.:.•:);\PF'LICAN~~S ·...). 4. GILBffiT M1~AMBEMBELE) VERSUS·. THE REPUBLIC .,, ... ·-· ..i, RULING .').' :., • Jj / ,. • • • ' . •,' The applic'n.nts stand 'trial jointly on a' charge of .disturbi:1:-g a rel:i,pious I • .:.(, • :, • ,• • ~ssembly c/s 126 o'f. the Peha1:.-.Co_de. Having iosf _faith in the learnect·,t;r:-ial District Magi~tr&t~ on allege. d bias·, tiley ha.vi/applied for a reyision~ order ~. . •,.,,. , by which thk''t~ia1:co-urt 1s·order'm~y be undoh:~· Mr. Naali, learned counsel, • • : 1 : acts for thein.i · ... •, The record of proceedings shows .that the prose~u'ti~n clb's'ed :their-=cnse r 'J: :,. . - . on 14th Sept~mb~r,. 200~j:: ~e~Er.~fter ·t~e accu~~:a/perso~s wer'e · chl:1-eu. -upon to make their def enc~,. which .they did on ·3rd. Octob-~r·, 2002,.: They .. cal~d one . I • •. • .::'·,. witness',' hnbukege Mwa.ngosf· (DW.5)., to· teEtify':·in:· their· delence.: · The :record sho· . ! • furth~r that Er. Naali, learned counsel, was instructed to defend 'the .appli- c~t~ nfter DW.5 ·had testified'~·· Irrfm~aia'tely after· t9.king up· the ·conduct of the defence :Vir."Naali appli';.ed; for and was SUppJiH~o. 'with,' a -cdpy 'of the' reo,)rd of proceediI~:g°~. That ~pon receiving the copy :iof;t.he :trial court's record of - proceedings ·~ir.' ·Naili applied for the disquillifico:tion of the trial magistrate on grounds of bia;s because, having read the· -prOGeedings ;~e claimed-. that his clients were .disputing the ·correctness of -that.re"cori:L, None . . 0f them . 'filed an o.ff:Ldavi t fo sho-w which; part of tl{e· record was wanting.- As the learned J trial magistr-'.lte says jn Jri.s ruling, r~. Naali did not lead:.evidence to show which part of the record had been 1 ,doctored ... '. • In the end _t,he applicµtion was dismisse,d, . \ . \ . •. • •• /2. Soon after the applicatioi:/was d.ismi'Sjied Mr. Naali indicated that he was 1 going to appeitl~ ':.of c8rtrsc h~ ought to'1iave known ~t'fu:rt his clients have no right to appeal ag'ains't ~\i.nterim,.order in. a criminµ]_ proceeding. So he has brought this appliba'hon so.that the order_;by which the trial magistrate refused to stand down from the trial P,$, 'revised<$O also"the.order of trial ' . ! ~... . '.--,~•-:,--t··_i.:_ ...• :..~ L_.~-:i~ -J:: .. ., !i ~ • court refusing to recall m-1•. 5·/ ·. - '·•i~~;: _ ., : __ ---\~•!. ·... i .... . .-! *~~}- . Ji-· Mr. Naali contends in his finttl submissi6ns that the application has been ') '.~--; ,• brought to. forest s:111 miscarriage of justice because th,e, applicants do not \J,., . ·_ .··:-}.i<'."~'.L·~- -~ • ••!•#__\ .. ~~:#·•JI>•~ ~ ........ -: • • :.~ ' • . 1--;_ ·_:_:. believe that they will receiV"e:~UEi°tice··from· ·the learned trial District Magistrate. On his part !'fir~ Mulokozi 1 learned Senior State Attor.n.e;y,t·. sulomi ts that the 4PPJ.~c,'3,:!;i'ion i 9, a.s. . mis,conee.ivecl,'.as •. "i :\,t.J i~,9~ntenab-le . ' . in . law •. ·,He contends that the purpose, .... of section$ '. 43 an.,ct_~44 '/. ... .. . o;f the :t1~6 istr,ate.s : Courts: . 1i.ct and \,'', ~:ection 372 o;f ,tr;i~ Criminal • : •. -~. -··. '!.. ' .. I?rocedype : ' • ' ' . '. / 11ct.:ar-'-e not unlimi te<h Ac.cording to j • jurisdiction of the High Court for purposes of "• • • satisfying itself as to the correctness ,,::-,legality qr proprie,ty of- roi.y. finding t sentence or order •••' • ,1', ' .. / ' . . .and as to the regularity qf any pro,c;eedings ... ~''• It is .his further• sub- . ' '.. ·.. ,i · mission _that •. a m.p.g~strate. trying a c;3.se has di.spretion to· withdraw or not ·, where hip positio:µ:) . s .impugn_e,d. In .. sum ~J is.Jhe, Republic I s submission that nothing vva9 done th.at justified .~· '. gr~ting .. tl~i,:, applicant's desire·'to have him . . . :. ~ ' withdraw frQm the-.;.tr:ial of .the. cas~•- . Nor .wcIB: the.re any.. incorrecthess, · (", . irregular:ity orI t,Illpropriety. ......... . ;T~at .... the. ·.. applicants , . ,., . haviJ;;J.g , •... · ' • closed their ·. defence . whether at that st1;J.ge. it:v,1:ci.1;,.ne.cessary, .. . . to re,fall .. ·ii.°witrt'iss. .. " . ,•. . Ji: mere statement ' tha:t the advocate ;y1as to pi'eP.are'. a· pto:pt::\r, defence was no_t ,_good cause to have the defence stca-t. -2-2.~• It is also :learned Senigr .State .:ittorney' s contentiop. i;hat ·the.- c;1:pplicant~ .have not .prov:ed any-.distortio.ns in_ the record of p.r.oceedi.ngs~ .r:. •··. 00 ./3 • , 3 ..... ·, I affidavit of Mr'o :tugustin6 Raj ab Mohamed Na~L,\ learned counsel for. the . 'l' {If: applicants. That af:fide,vit is not free froni, fatal irregularities •.. I will •' •, .... point them out. Firstly\ he swe:irs in paradtaph 3 that "•••· I was informed l.i . .that the evidence of DW.5 one AMBlJ1CTLE M~JAN<.1eSI: was faulte-d 11 • Dvl.5 did not. swear an affidavit to verify if ·his testimony was incorrectly recorded or if 13,nyth:iing. he said was not recorded. Po.ragraj:)h 3 is, therefore, hearsay. ~ BGcondly 1 he swears in· paragraph 14 that. "• u _the accused persons told me of .'.· ., . t.hE;:i.r- discontent ••• 11 ;-· ·· None-"6-.t tbo.§e ac.<:::\!§.~d persons swore . to verify o.nd disc,on_tent. the~ had~ if at all~,' .7.I~~.i}?.- not~settled law. that no court in this . · - . . · ·r t _ countr:f·w±n . cict-'·on. -·an·' -a-ffid-a'iFi,t_Rb.i.i;ili .is . . . ..... . sourced . " ,. . . . from inforl]lation: . . . .. provided . .) b/ third ·persons i:f those persons do ·not .s\1eai- affidavits ;f. t,heir own on ,· In paragraph 7 ivir.,,. Naali swdars that• :if, the decision· oJ the tri.al c~u,rt i, ·.· is upheld it may oc~asion grave· trii:::i'carriag~ -of' justic.e as the applicants - i.-: ,.,............"™- ~,.,_... will be condemn~d. un.he·ard. Well tnts,·. arg~ent lacks.merit because the ...applicant-~ · ' gave evidence in their .. d·~ifence and called to that effect. I DW.5 Eve- .. if they. had not been: ·given the opportunity to -be heard; paragrapl:).. 7 is a submission on a point of law, it is not a fact which can be contQine~ in an . affidavit,. Similarly; paragraph 9 contains legal arguments!' Paragraph 10 is a prayer, not a fact, .• What remains of the supporting affidavit, therefore, .::u-e paragraphs 5 ~d 6 regarding the· right· to recall DW.5 and the allegation that the trial court il'. ', ' -; )' . t omi .tifti,/o record citations of section 147 (4)_ 'Of the .l!i'vidence ii.ct, 1967\ and secH ... .;..J -1~·~., • ·;,,__~; ..,' of the Criminal Procedure -:,ct; • :1 ·!.,· .. 1985, ··• . ..... I t ,.,, There is no controv~rsY:at; ai1:~1ttfit,.'section 1-47: .( 4) 'c9f t,hc -~v;_i,dence Act bestows discretion-~ a ~rial court to grant p e r m ~ ~ - witness be recalled either:Lfbr further examin&tion-in-chief or for further cross-cxamina- tion. Of course the e,?.t_ef<:_ise of any discretion shall not be capricious; discrE•-· tion must be exercised fairly and judicially. Reasons must be given in all cases the court accepts or declines to exercise tt. In the instant case the •••/4 • j 4 .,;. trial court di6liri~d to exc-:r;cise its discretion because Vire· Naali '-did not cite an; procedurcD. -law.iha,t entitled his: clients to re~~pen their defence in ;;a'~/\;gr~~all ·DW.5. /That being an application, it matters not that it was m~de :ir"ifi.1' 1diMrted ~o~s6t i'3-S required to ·cite the procedural law whi~c_h empowers ;··ttiE1.1 b6&:t t; re•open the defence for purp6~~s of ~ec6.lling a witness·.·· ·:(f-'fk rnoW 1';se'ttled 1hv/ that: an' appli\:~cmt' niust ci.te;~~rrecf l~w unden.. which he 'cirlng,f ~ts<;pplica.ti°o~•, faifin'.g. which the application shall' not be J ente~tainJa:'. ~Jbeya~R~v.a /i.ut~parts·: &. Trhnspqrt ·.1:,td: v~.:~~~t_ina__g_e.,oss;e M\.J~,Y2~ Nd~· 45 of 2002; N.,1?• c. i.!_§.~.9£.ud~E :Meghji ( CA) Civil ( C~)- ·Civii' ,~ppeal 1\ppli~"~tlon No. ~o of 1977 and 19-m~~-lddie M~nyi v. N,B,c. & Another (CA) Civil '. .i·': ~\.pplicaifon No. 88 of 1998. It :fallows that since learned' counsel for the applicants did not cite any statutory provisions which entitted him to put the . . . . provisions of s. 147 (4) of the 'Evid~~ce Act into •p~ay, t.kl~ appl;ic::',tion was a ::)."•· . nullity. Since the applicati;n· before me 18 for an ~icfat tb. revise a nullity_, it is itself a nullity as weii; it wou14 fail . .. as a i~esult, '. The application for revision is dismissed for reasons contained herein, ·:.i:•. ,d {,t .· . ' .. . It is directed the trial court's recol:'.d . be remitted thereto to conclude,-t;J:1e _,- ~-,,. trial • .. ,_, Deliver~d •. Sgd. Jo Mo :Yu\CK1\NJit -·.·JUDGE 27/6/2002 Mr o Boniface, s, A. : • F.GJr_.; D.P •p • I. Certified true copy~{ the original :. \ --· "._ ,.- .,.·, . l