19800717 TZHC Arusha

K p\ 1

THE HIGH CLT OF TANZANIA AT L_ APPELLATE JURiSDICTION 2 3SEP 1980. HIGJ-I COURT CRIMINAL /PEAL NQ 0 J4, OFJ979 .L BEORE: PRICE COMMISSIONER, •SQ, M/S ARUSHA SUNDRIES APPELLANT versus REPUBL€ RESPONDENT JUDGtT NROSO, J. ., This is an appeal aanst the decisiQn purporting to be that of the Assistant Price Commissioner for hrusha Region in com,ound1ng certain offences allegedly cthmitted by the appellant inArusha towWf.; The appellant was ordered to pay a total fine of shillings 5 . .. . The appellant's counsel has filed a nine point meQrandUm of appeai but .bfore I. deal th the .merits or btlerwise of the ..grounds of appeal, if it shall be necessary I find it necessary to consider a point I aisedat the tine, of hearing the appeal ó both learnEd counsels for the Republicandfor the defen: Iwb wondering whether the "Afisa Biasbara wa Mkoa" (presumably. the Regional Trade Officer).was in law competent to compound oferces under the Regulabion of Prices 0ct 1 l73, which, in this Jud3emeflt, T shall sometimes refer to only as the Act. cOunsel forthe appellant said to court that ho thought .th Regional Trade Officer did not have such powers 0 Thi. '€ate.Attorney for the respondent Republic also expressed doubt and produced in Court two copies of letters he obtained from Regona1 Trade 6f.ti3r which pu.rted to empower him to compound off enc.s cn behalf o the Assistant Price Commissioner..

One of the letters No. TYB-ST/P9OI6.O8 dated 3rd August, 1977 appears to have originated from the Price Co4ssiorier.'s Officë,Dar-es--Sàlaarn and was addressed to all Assistant Price Commissioners in Tanzania mainland.. The àprig paragrapof the letter said - 'ct has come to our notie that. in conducting pripe... i,pection oficers othér than Regional DQvelopmént ors and District Developntent Directo's - (sistant Price Commissioners) have sLimuthneousay a-stimed the sole of compàunding hf cffen':s n' • 4mposing fines as errivisaged under Sec -h!or 'i.-) 33 • and 34 of the Requlation' of prices 1c, 17 1 ' • . :-- •. 12 These off '-r çoo . o . . •. . .. ..-. '--. VW 2'. These officers, no doubt. have been acting on behalf of their respettie Assistant Price Commissioners. NormlprOedure ihould.be followed in doi ig so. Let nie outline it below:-." The letter then proceeds to outline the rocedure of.compounding offences under th Regulation of Prices Act and in pararaph (iv) of the letter it is said - "(iv) Howe 44rer, the Price I comrassioner or the Assistant price commissioner could delegate such function of compourding off ences to their respective Senior off icers These officers: in carrying out these functionsust do so on behalf bf the Price C.ommission. or Assistant Price Commissioner." Apparently acting under the authority of the above quoted letter, the Regional Development

Director f o r AruSha wrote th4 secon&.letter. whjch was producedbefore me This letter Ref. / No. Rc/AR/E.2tlA/17..of 23/10/78 was addesthed to the Regional Trade Officer, Arusha appointing him in person and another as officers with power and aithority to compound offençqs.nde.r the / Requ.tion of Prices Act. 1 Twore1atedqüetion. ar- ••;.o be asked here.. .Fjst, does the Price Cothrnlssioner have po:: to delegate / his powers, of compounding offehces1.Under the Act. to :p.2iiC officers other than to Regional and District. bevelopmen DJ.rctprs? : . SeCond, does a Regional Development Director., as an assistt Pice Cpmmi.sSione, have power to delegate, his power: of compoundiriq off es uder Ct?: I have endeavoür.ed some strenuous reading of the Act but, have uiled to find a provision eilpowering either pubç ofic'ertodo so. . .. .... / • . Seotion..34 of the At Which reltestb the compoundng of- • ofencesmentions the Price Commissioer as the person cant Comouid offences un1der the Act. By Virtue of section 2 (j) of ithe Act reference to the' Price Commissibnerjn section 34 also includes • As3.jtat Price IComrnjssionerse AlsO tib-section (3) e'Ction 2 9f che A which refers to delegatioñ of powers unUer the Act says the Ntorta. Price 1 Commission and the Price Commissio -ier. 1ay, by direetionz in writing de1eate any of its r hi f--nctiolis to an .1 Ass4.sta$pijce Commissioner0 . .

. _/3 / . '-"I. - '-'r. -------- ••••S•O• -3- We are told in section 7(2) and (3) that it is Regional and District Development Directors who are Assistant Price Commissioners. No where in the Act is it stated expressly or by implication that Assistant Price Commissioners can themselves delegate the powers delegated to them by the Price Commissioner0 In the absence of such authority from the provisions of the Act, the Assistant price Commissioners have no such power fop, indeed, 'DeieqatUS_rion • potest delegare" i.e. a delegate cannot deJ.egate, or you may: not • delegate delegated ,owers. It may well be, of course, that the Minister for Trade made. a general appointhient of Regional and bistrict Trade (commrcjal) Officers as Assistailt Price Commissioners for Regions and Districts, respectively, by.acting under section 7 (5) of the Act. If that was how the Regional Trade Officer for Arusha, in this case, acquired his pwers of compounding off ences then I should have been referred to the +elevint n6tice ii'the official Gazette and not, / the letters fr'om the Price Commissioner and the Regional Development Direcrfbt Arusha, -reetively. I therefore hold that the purortdompounding of offerces which has been the;subject rdatter of this appeal was null and void. The appeal is therefore allowed on this ground by itself 0 I do not therefore find any need to deal with the grounds of

appeal sub.rnj.tted by coUnsel for the appellant although they all have a lot of merit0, Th.e form of the purrted chargshet, the procedUre which was foLlowed in compow4ing the off ences, all leave a lot to be desired. To speak a little more about the procedure followed, it capears from both the affidavit sworn and filed by the appellant and froPi the fact that there are two parallel charge sheets with signatures of two different persons who allegedly pleaded guilty for alleged offences under the Act, show that the Regional Trade Officer and his staff not only unduLy rushed up the appellant but also acted in breach of the elementary principles of natural justice. The fines which the.appellarit paid are to be refunded- to-him. It is so ordered. Read in Court this ).7th day of July, 1980. (J0 A. MROSO) JAMJMJK.S .. JUDGE. '4