martin sebastian nyoni vs republic 2008 tzhc 292 30 july 2008

IJN THE HIGH COURT 01 TANZANIA

AT ARUSHA CRIMINAL AP P E AL NO. 142 OF 2007 MARTIN SEBASTIAN NYONI @ FIFTY .......... APPELLANT Versus — THE R E P U B L I C ..................................................... RESPONDENT ( A |n»eal from ilie decision of the District Courl o 1 Ar usha ) (F. A. K A H A M B A - RM) Dated the 2 1 th day of Jul y, 2007 In Criinitial (iase No. 719 of 2005

JLLJDCMENI OF THE COURT 21st J u l y & 3011* .Inly. 2008 BEFORE: B. M. M MILL A, T h e a p p e l l a n t , Ma r t i n S e b a s t i a n Nyoni @ F i f t y was a m o n g t he fi ve persons w h o wer e ch a r ge d in the District Court o f A r u s h a wi t h li ve count s o f a r m e d r o b b e r y . W h i l e all his col l eagues wer e a c q u i t t e d on all t he count s , t he appellant, was f ound gu i l t y on all o f t h e m, c o n v i c t e d and s ent enced to a t w e n t y f i ve (25) y e a r s ’ i mp r i s o n me n t t er m. T h e appea l is aga i ns t c o n v i c t i o n and sent ence. Me is a p p e a r i n g in person whi l e the Re publ i c is bei ng r epr es ent ed by Mr. Z a k a r i a , l ear ned s t a t e a t t o r n e y w h o decli ned to s u p p o r t conv i ct ions, hence I lie s ent ence whi c h was i mposed on a c c o u nt o f i ns uf f i ci ency o f e v i dence to s ust ai n t he said conv i ct i ons . T h e a p p e l l a n t ' s m e m o r a n d u m of appeal has raised t hr ee g r ou nd s whi ch c o n v e r g e on one b r o a d point I hat he was not p r o p e r l y i denti fi ed as h a v i n g been the culpri t behi nd tin* char ged cri mes, c o n s e q u e n t l y that the pr osecut i on did not p r o v e t he case against him b e y o n d r ea s on a b l e doubt . Ilis oral s ubmi s s i on in c o ur t focused on n o t hi n g else but this point.

Tie concl uded t he r e f or e , t h a t the t o t a l i t y of the pr osecut i on ev i de n c e wa s not cogent , a v i e w s ha r e d by the l earned s t a t e a t t o r n e y Mr. Xa k ar i a . I hast en to s a y that I agree w i t h t hem. Th e s t r e n g t h o f this appea l depends on w h e t h e r or not t he e v i dence of i dent i f i cat i on in t hat r egar d was w a t e r ti ght. S h o u l d it be f ound t hat the a ppel l ant w a s not p r o p e r l y i dent i f i cat i on, I h a v e no doubt t hat it w ill fall, t he reason bei ng t hat he was c o nv i c t e d sol ely on t he ev ideuce o f P W 4 w h o p u r p o r t e d t hat he i denti fi ed him. As was o b s e r v e d by t he Court of A p p e a l in t he case of Wa z i r i s/o A m a n i v. Republi c ( 1 9 8 0 ) T. L. R. 2 5 0 , ev i dence o f vi sual i dent i f i cat i on is of the weakest ki nd an d most unrel i abl e. In v i e w of this, t hat c o u r t s t a t ed in t he last p a r a g r a p h of page 251 tliat:- “ ... no court shoul d act on e v i dence o f vi sual i dent i f i cat i on unless all possibilities o f mi s t a k e n i d e n t i t y ar e e l i mi na t e d and t he court is f ul l y satisfied t h a t the e v i d e n c e bef ore it is a b s o l u t e l y w a t e r l i g h t . ’'’ T h e a b o v e c o u r t ’s e x pr es s i on was based on t he cases of R. v. Eri a S e b w a l o ( 1 9 6 0 ) E. A. 1 7

4 , L e j o r Teper v. The Queen ( T 9 5 2 ) E. A. 4 8 0 , Al x l a l l a Bi n W e m l o and A n o t h e r v. R (1953) 20 E. A . C. A. 166, K. v. Ka b i g o \va Nangi mgi i (1948) 23 K . L. I?, and Mugo v. R. (1966) K. A. 124 (K). In our instant, case, t he c h ar ged cr i me w a s al l egedl y c o mmi t led at night, w hi c h means t he condi t i on o f i dent i f i cat i on wa s unfavourable. As p r o p e r l y s u b m i t t e d b y bo t h the appel l ant and t he l ea r ned s t a t e a t t o r n e y Mr. Z a k a r i a , o f all t he pr osecut i on wi tnesses o n l y P W 4 cl ai med t hat he m a n a g e d to i d e n t i f y t he appel l ant on account t h a t he b a t t l e d w i t h him for about 4 5 mi nut e s . The o t h e r wi tnesses. P W I A y u b u s/o Ki hi ki and P W 3 Gr a c e d/o C h r i s t o p h e r K i t u n d u told tin1 trial court t hat t h e y did not ident ify a n y o f t he cul pr i t s, i ncl udi ng t he a p p e l l a n t . I share' t he v i e ws ol t he l earned s t a t e a t t o r n e y iYlr. Z a k a r i a t hat the ev i de n c e o f P W l on the point w a s insuffi ci ent because he did not k n o w hi m before nor did he offer a n y de scr i pt i on o f t he ap p e l l a n t . Rel yi ng on t he case of W a l t e r Domi ni @ Omondi & Ti i i nai ni s/o L ut he r v. Republ i c, Cr i mi na l Appea l No. 1 5 o f 2 0 0 5 , CAT, A r u s h a Regi s t r y ( un r

e po r t e d ) , Mr. Z a k a r i a s u b m i t t e d t hat a l t h o u g h P W 4 said t her e w a s light at the scene of cr i me, t hat assert i on was i n a d e q u a t e because he did not ex pl ai n t he source of t he alleged light. That is i ndeed t he case. Thi s fact stabilizes the vi ew t hat t he condi t i on o f i dent i f i cat i on w a s not f a v o u r a b l e . As to w h a t m ay amount to a f a v o u r a b l e i dent i f i cat i on, t he Cour t of A p p e a l said it all in the a l r e a d y cited case o f W a z i r i A i n a n i w h e n it s t at ed: - 44A l t h o u g h no ha r d and fast rules can be laid d o w n as to the m a n n e r a t rial j udge shoul d d e t e r m i n e ques t i ons of di s put ed i d e n t i t y , it seems el ear lo us that, he coul d not he said to h a v e properly r esol ved the issue unless t her e is s h o w n on the recor d a caref ul and consi der ed analysis of all the s u r r o u n d i n g c i r c ums t a nc e s o f the cr i me being tried. We w o u l d for e x a m p l e , expect to find on record <piestions such as t he f o l l owi ng posed and r esol ved h y hi m: t he t i me the wi tness had t he accused unde r o b s e r v a t i o n ; the d i s t a n c e at w hi c h he observed hi m; the condi t i ons in w hi c h such observation o c c ur r e d; for i nst ance, w h e t h e r it wa s d a y or night t i me, w h e t h e r t her

e was good or poor l i ght i ng at the scene; and f u r t h e r w h e t h e r the wi t ness knew or had seen the accused bef ore or not. These m a t t e r s are but a l ew ... to wh i c h the t ri al j udge s houl d direct his mi nd bef ore c o mi n g to one def i ni t e concl usi on on the issue of i d e n t i t y . ' It will be a p p r e c i a t e d t h a t t he tri al court m a g i s t r a t e in t he present case did not v o u c h such fact s as a result of whi ch he cannot be said he el i mi na t e d t h e d a n g e r o f mi s t a k e n i de nt i t y . It is on t hi s basis t hat 1 said right fr om t he begi nni ng that 1 shar e thei r v i ew t h a t t he issue of i de n t i t y was not p r o p e r l y r esol ved. In the c i r cums t a nces , this gr ound has meri t s and succeeds. Bef or e I m a y concl ude, I have* one o b s e r v a t i o n to m a k e r egar di ng the s ent ence w h i c h was i mposed by t he trial cour t . As I said at the begi nni ng, t he a p p e l l a n t was c o nv i c t e d on all the 5 c o u n t s w i t h whi ch he was laced. W h e n it c a me to s ent enci ng h o w e v e r , t hat court said t h a t , I (juot e:- ’T h e .V'1 Ac cus ed Ma r l i n s/o S e b a s t i a n Nvo ni (ci)y Ki l t y is h e r e b y sent enced to s er v e i mpr i s o nme nt t er m o f t w e n t y fi ve (25) y e a r s . ” Thi s sent ence did not refer to a n y specific c o un

t , nor can it be said it refl ected on all t he count s . I cannot avoid saving t ha t in the c i r c u ms t a n c e s of t his case it was o mni bus. The cases of Bu r t o n IV1 waki pesi l c v. Republ i c (1965) E. A. 107 and Nal l i anacl Nkul i ki ye v. Republ i c ( 1 9 8 2 ) T. L. R. 1 2 9 p r o v i d e v i t a l gui dance r egar di ng o m n i b u s sent ences. In the l a t t e r case of Na t ha na e l Nkul i ki ye, the court passed a single s ent ence a m o n g I lie 8 c o u n t s whi c h we r e char ged. R e l y i n g on t he f o r me r case o f Bu r t o n Mwaki pes i l e, t hat court said tliat:- “ Tl i e second ques t i on is the o mn i b u s s ent ence i mposed on counts I to 8. T h e general principle1 is t hat an o mn i b u s s ent e n c e is u n l a w f u l whe n it is u n r e l a t e d to each co nv i c t i on on each c o unt . In o t h e r w o r d s for each c o n v i c t i o n t her e must be i mposed a s e p a r a t e s e n t e n c e . . . ” In v i ew o f t he a b o v e , t he trial court m a g i s t r a t e wa s d u l y b o u n d , or ought to h a v e passed a sent ence in each o f the count s on whi c h it c o nv i c t e d him. H o w e v e r , this wa s not a f u n d a m e n t a l i r r e gu l a r i t y . In a fit case, I woul d h a v e r esor t ed to t he p r o v i s i o ns o f section 3 8 8 of t he C r i mi na l Pr oc edur e Act Cap . 20 o f t he Re v i s

e d Edi ti on: 2 0 0 2 and cur ed it b y passi ng t he a p p r o p r i a t e sen Icnees in each count . Ho w e v e r , in v i e w o f w h a l I have said in this j u d g me n t as a whol e, I find that t her e is no need to do so and I refrain. W i l l i all that sai d, and lor reasons I h a v e e n d e a v o u r e d to gi ve in this j u d g m e n t , I allow t he a p pe a l , quas h the c o n v i c t i o n s and set aside the s ent ence w hi c h w a s a w a r d e d . It is h e r e b y or der ed t hat t he appel l ant be released from jail f o r t h w i t h unless he is being o t h e r w i s e c o n t i n u a l l y held for s ome o t h e r l a wf ul cause. <Sg«l) [Ylmilla, B. i\l. Judge 22. 7. 2 0 0 8 3 0 th J u l y . 2 0 0 8 Coranti B. JV1. K. Mmi l l a. J . F o r the A p p e l l a n t : Abs ent . For the Respondent : Ms. INchalla, S t a t e A t t o r n e v . B/c: S. M. Court: J u d g m e n t de l i v e r e d this HO'1' d a y o f . J u l y , 2 0 0 8 in t lie presence of Ms. JNchalla for t he Re pu bl i c hut in the absence o f t he ap p e l l a n t .

AT A R USH A (Sg<l) M m illa, B.iM. J udge 30/7/2008 RMM/jn.