matthew daniel susuma another vs republic 2007 tzhc 129 6 december 2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA

AT MOSHI MISCELLANEOUS CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 30 OF 2007 [C/F ECONOMIC CRIME CASE NO 6 OF 2007 AT MOSHI DISTRICT COURT AT MOSHI] MATTHEW DANIEL SUSUMA &ANOTHER................APPLICANTS

VERSUS REPUBLIC................................................ RESPONDENT

RULING MUGASHA. J. This is a ruling in respect of an application for bail pending trial made under section 29(4) d of the Economic and Organised Crimes Control Act Cap 200. The application is supported by the affidavit of Mr Matteru learned Counsel for the applicants setting out grounds of the application. The record shows that the applicants, together with one other person are jointly charged with interalia, Disruption, damaging and interference with property which is used for the purposes of providing necessary services contrary to paragraph 20(1) (2) of the First Schedule made under section 57(1) of the Economic and Organised Crime Control Act Cap 200, pending trial before the Resident Magistrate Court. i The particulars of the offence are that, the applicants and the other person, between January 2006 and October, 2007 at unknown times and places within the Municipality of Moshi in Kilimanjaro Region, jointly and together did disrupt, damage and interfere with electricity network to wit they cut transformer outlet cables, trithing fuel and cutting winding wires from the same causing a loss of tshs. 60,000,000/= to Tanzania Electric Supplies Company and such acts were likely to endanger human life. The applicants were represented by Mr.Matteru learned Counsel and the respondent was represented by Mr. Mauggo learned State Attorney. Mr. Matteru the learned Counsel for the

applicants, in his affidavit and submission contends that the offence under which the applicant is charged is bailable and the applicant has reliable sureties and is willing to comply with the conditions of bail as shall be ordered by the court. However, Mr. Matteru urged the court to consider that so long as the total sum required to be deposited is thirty million, then that amount be divided and apportioned equally into the number of the accused persons in order to enable the applicants each to deposit a sum of ten million shillings. However, Mr. Matteru urged to disregard the condition of requiring the applicants to deposit ten million as cash sum as the applicants cannot afford that sum and in the alternative avail some other conditions which could be complied by the applicants. 2 On the other hand, Mr Mauggo learned State Counsel for the respondent did not resist the application and supported the fact that the offence under which the applicant is charged is bailable. However, Mr Mauggo responding on Mr Matteru’s plea for the relaxation of bail condition of depositing cash urged the court to stick to the law because the condition is mandatory I have considered the affidavit in support of the application and the submission of the learned State Counsel. Moreover, the applicants are amongst three accused persons who are jointly charged with of an offence causing a loss of

Tshs. 60,000,000/= to Tanzania Electric Supplies Company and the other has also filed application No. 27 Of 2007 seeking for bail. Section 36(1) e of the Economic and Organised Crime Control Act Cap 200, provides: The Court shall not admit to bail if, the offence to which the person is charged involves property whose value exceeds ten million shillings, unless that person pays cash deposit equivalent to half the value of the property, and the rest is secured by execution of a bond Thus, in terms charge facing the applicants and the other person, the sum required to be deposited is Tshs 30,000,000/= being amongst conditions for admitting the applicant to bail. However, it is evident that the each applicant, in Economic Case No 6 of 2007, is not separately charged with the stated offence but rather the three are jointly charged 3 to have committed the said offence causing a loss of 60,000,000/= to Tanzania Electric Supplies Company. In the circumstances, it is not fair to order each applicant, to deposit in court a sum of 30,000,000/=. If every applicant was separately charged with the said offence, then certainly,it would have been just for each applicant to be required to deposit 30,000,000/=. Therefore for the sake of fairness, it is pertinent to divide that sum into the number of the accused persons because according to the particulars of the offence they are presumed to

have equally contributed to the loss of 60,000,000/= against Tanzania Electric Supplies Company. I the upshot of the aforesaid, and considering that the offence which the applicants are charged with is a bailable offence subject to conditions set out under section 36(4) e of the Economic and Organised Crime Control Act Cap 200, and the fact that the Respondent does not resist the application, this court grants bail to the applicant on the following conditions to be complied by each applicant: a) To deposit in this court cash sum of Tshs.10,000,000/= b) The applicant to furnish a bail bond of Tshs. 5,000,000/= with two sureties each, one of whom must produce a title deed of immovable property situated in Moshi Municipality. c) To appear in the Resident Magistrate Court of Moshi specified date and time. 4 d) To surrender to this Court travelling documents if any, with immediate effect. e) Every applicant is not allowed to travel outside the Region of Kilimanjaro without prior permission of the Principal Resident Magistrate in Kilimanjaro. The Sureties to be approved by the District Registrar. S. E. MUGASHA

JUDGE 6/12/2007 Ruling delivered in the presence of the applicants and Mr. Maugo, learned State Counsel. S. L__ ____

JUDGE 6/12/2007 5