19700418 TZHC Dar es salaam

IN THE HiGH C0JRT OF TANZANiA At Dar es Saiaam CrimInal Appeal No. 214 of 1970 (0ri1nai Criminal Case No. 231 of 1970 of the District Court of Dodoma District at Dodoma). BEFORE: N. MUSHI, Esq., RESIDENT MAGISThATh MAGARSINGHANOICSINGH.......................APFELLANP versus mm-' T)iTTt7Tt • DrOr1rT' JJ.JLl 1tLJLUUjJ.LJ 1 I I I I a a a I 1 I * *IISSSIII • • CHARGE: Unlawful staring in Tanzania c/s 23 (i) (i) (2) of the Immigration Act 41 of 1963.

JUDGMENT HAMLYN, J. — The appellant was convicted in the District Court of Dodoma on his own plea of an immigration offence under section 23 (1) (i) (2) of the immigration Act — that of unlawfully staying in Tanzania. He was sentenced to pay a fine of Shs. 500/— or in default of payment to three months imprisonment. The fine was duly paid, and the accused now appeals to this Court against the quantum of the fine. The Petition of Appeal sets out that the appellant is a carpenter by trade and is aged about 62 years; he is stated to be unemployed and is a first offender. The appellant asks this Court to remit tho fine wholly or in part and for any e:cess to be refunded to him. Now I do not think that this Court can possibly agree that this offence is not a serious one. It is contended in the Petition that the appellant was oriinal1y in this country lawfully but that he faIled to take whatever steps were required of him when the particular 1git1ation under which he was prosecuted was enacted. Whether this be correct or not (and the claim is not in accordance with the faots as given by the prosecutor to the court and admitted by the appellant) it is clearly the duty of persons residing in a country to ensure that they comply with the requirements of the immigration authorities. To hol tht such requirements need not be complied with would resuit in complete aç1inistrative chaos. I do

not therefore think that the appellant has any firm roun on which to stand and to pray this Court to reduce his punishment. It is at least quite apparent that the magnitude of the punishment is not so excessive as to warrant the interference of this Court on appeal. In the event therefore, this Court considers that the appeal against sentence is without substance nd that there are no material ciroumetanops of the case which could lead this Court to consider that sentence ought to be reduced. After reading the record, this Court is satIsfied that the appe1 has been lodged without any sufficient ground of complaint and I consequntiy order that it be forthwith summarily rejected. Dar cc Saluam. (o.T. HALYN) 18th April, 1970 - JtJDG