19830901 TZHC Mbeya

TN jH E HIGH CC)IiRT OF TANZANIA ATItBEYA. APPELLATE JURISDICTIO' HIGfl OURT CRIMINAL APPEAL JIvifl 47 OF 1983 ORIGI- NAL CIMINAL.CASNU? 382 OF i.92 OF the District Court of Mbeao flistrlbt at Mbeya foz'e J.M. Kirèyei4 Resident Iagitrate MAGORI D.S. IVIAGbRI APPELLANT versus ¶IHE REPUBLIC . . .. . • . • . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . e. • • ......... 1$PO:NDENT (originai 1i8ecutor) argé: Càrrupt t±ansaätion. c/a 3(1) (3) (a) of the Pventiori of Corrupt Act, (No. 16 of l971) Date Coram: F.A. Winyera q 3ude - S Appe1lant. Mr..Bateyunga, Advocate. Bespondent Mr. Lundu, S.Ao 31) )GMENT MNYER, J. flie appellant was chrged with another fox bb rruptly solicitig. The appellant was a RLnance MariaggrI6ht Assistant With the Income Tax Department here in Mbeya. The conplainant (PW.i) was a businessman at Ileje. He used to do business in Zambia. He also used to come to the Iiicome.Tax Office to have his taxes assessed. It Was alleged t'-t on the 11.4.81 he went to the office and met the appellant who assessed his tax at Shs. 5 9 000/=. The complainant found it too high compared with his business. He askedthe appellant to reconsider the assessnent The appellant became adainant. The complainant welked out dissatisfied. On 13.4.81 he retuined to the office. The appellant told him to pay Slis. 3 9 001= tax and Shs..2 9 000/= for tea.. The complainant did not want to give this tea. He knew it

meant bribe.- He went straight to the Anti Corruption Square and reported:. He was given trap mo-ney to hand it to appellant. Accoiüi.ng to his testimony the appellant did not accept the money but directed him to hand the money to the second accused (not concerned with this appeal) He and the second accused went out of the office and he tried to give him the-money. The latter refused to accept it. That was the end of the matter. Despite the failure of the squard T s trap the two men, the appellant and the second accused were charged with soliciting only. They denied The al1egation. The appellant was convicted and sentenced to three (3) years (his co-accused was acquitted). He ... 2 I\ I I - 'o1it tii appealwhioh has been argued at length by Mr. flateyuna It was in evidence that the oonplainant Was given the trap money / with in9rnictioni to give4t to the appellan± Who"m he had reported a soliciting bribe frOm hin And in his own words he• told the court that he did not give thai niohey to the appellant but endeavourod to give it to the second accused who refused to accept .1to Why should he want to give the money to the sebond accused w14ie he know the trap was intondod for the appellant? hie was dhough to make his evidence iubelicveable. Apart f±Om this fact the was no evidence to corrobo- rate e complainant's allegation that the appflant solicited bribe Him ovidonoo should nOt

have been boliovo8. without corroboration because ho brought in thir3gG that took pldè between hiiii and the appeliant as oaly al9$O. io' were not in glooa terms. It vies dangerous for the trial magist±'ate to accept the coiplainant's only version as to the solicitationi I allow the appeal,.quash the appellants conviction whtch the Republic did not support, set aside the bentence and oxdei' }ais iinnuxlia ta reJ.oae (F.A. &uiyera) ffBEYA. JUDGE 1.9.1983 14 9;••i93 I certified that this is true copy of the original. • '•\

DISTRICT RZGITR IVLBEYA. \ .t • . .. •;;_ , LL /