20050715 TZHC Mwanza

APPELLATE JURISDICTION HIGH COURT CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 21 OF 2005 ORIGINAL CRIMINAL CASE NO. 20 OF 2001 OF DISTRICT COURT OF MUSOMA DISTRICT AT MUSOMA (Before D. M. F. KAMALAMO District Magistrate) MARTIN s/o PAKONI ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• "••••• APPELLANT Versus THE REPUBLIC ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••·••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• RES PON DENT 13/6/2005 & 15/7/2005 JUDGMENT R. M. RWEYEMAMU, JUDGE: Martin s/o Pakoni was arraigned on a charge with 22 counts. The first six counts were of causing death thrqugh dangerous driving; I and count 7 to 21, of causing bodily injuMies through dangerous driving contrary to section 40 (1) 27 (1) (c) nd 63 (2)a of the Road Traffic Act as amended by Act 16/96. The last count was use of goods motor vehicle· to carry passengers ithout public carriers' License, contrary to section 32 of the Transp rt Licen.se Act, 1/73.. He the last count he was sentenced pay fine 1 was convicted and sentenced to 3 years eac on count 1-21, and on imprisonment. He was further ordered to ply compensation in the 00,000/= or one year · total sum of Tshs. 210,000/= being Shs. 1 0,000 for each of the 1 victims and his license cancelled for a period of 3 years. Dissatisfied with conviction ?tnd sentence, he has appealed to this court. t The Republic, represented on appeal by Mr. Kiria State Attorney supported both conviction and sentence. In response to ground one and two of the appellants_ memorandum of appeal that there was insufficient grounds to support a finding of dangerous driving, the republic submitted two reasons for supporting conviction. One, that the appellant's vehicle was not licensed to carry passengers. The appellant knew that but disregarded it. This fact was indeed on the evidence uncontroversial. Two, that although the accident occurred due to tire bust, there was evidence the driver failed to control the vehicle resulting in an accident causing fatalities described in the 21 counts, because it was at the time being driven at high speed. I agree with the Republic's conclusion that such speed is evidence of reckless driving. Two, regarding the other major grounq of appeal that the trial court failed to consider mitigation, the learneb state attorney pointed ! to page 6 of the Trial court Judgment. The cdntents show clearly that the court considered mitigating circumstanJbes but still found the sentence passed appropriate for reasons d scribed. I can not fault the trial court's use of discretion in passing s ntence. The appellant carried passengers in a vehicle not licensed to carry them, and then chose to drive t l'e goods vehicle with passengers' in it at high speed. This was indbed a reckless disregard 2 ',j· _,_ • . by the appellant of the consequences of his actions .which rightly · :r 'I. [ i attracted the sentence it did . . I agree with· Republic, this appeal has no merit respecting· conviction or sentence. It is accordingly dismissed. ' ,c_ ' ""---- . . . 5-M. RWEYEMAMU . ~ JUDGE 15/7/2005 .-~ - -·- •• ' : •• -_,- :· •~;. -.;. ·-:; • ,i, I· / .· 3