19880614 TZHC Dar es Salaam

IN THE COURT OF 7kPPEIIL OF TNZANIit T D1U1E_SALPAM : 11 RIi1INLL APPEL.L NO 108 OF 1987 MUKTPR HAMISI MHXGANJi, . . . . . • . APPELLANT AID THE REPUBLIC. . . . . . . , . . RESPONDENT (Appeal from the conviction of the High Court of Tanzania at Mtwara) (Rubama, j.) dated. the 17th day of July, 1987 in Economic Crimes Case No. 2 of 1987 REASONS FOR. JUDGEMENT rrnt' T The appellant was charged with and convicted, of two counts (1) being in possession of Government trophies contrary to paragraph 16 (b) of the 1st Schedule of the Economic and Organized Crime Control Act No, 13 of 1984 as read with sections 67(1) and (2) and 78 (i) (a) of the Wildlife Conscatio±i Act No. 12 of 1974, (2) being in unlawful possession of property suspected to have been stolen or otheiàe unlafu11y.ocquired (to wit a pistol and 6 (six) rounds of aimuunition) contrary to paragraph 8(1) (b) of the1st Schedule of the Economic and Organized Crime Control Act No. 13 of 1984. He was sentenced on the 1st count to 15 years imprisonment and to 7 years imprisonment on the :econd count, both terms to run concurrently. The court also ordered the forfeiture of the trophies seized., a weighing scale and also the motor vehicle used in carrying the trophies, as well as the pistol and anunit ion. . I The appellant's appeal to this Court was heard on 10th June, 19 88 . At the donclusion of the hearing, we dismissed the appeal against conviction and the order for forfeiture of the motor vehicle. We reduced the sentence of 15 years iraprisonment on the 1st count •.. ...,./2 9q4tti 9d3S - e sT ansç i-w qnq 'dcoo G 1 zoKç 3qq 3t.fl. P Tfl3 peLl q-q. 'p.TI-q epnç T e laq Oq4 Se &I3ITI Sem .i 'pedE?OSO pi çp'-j jo poq.sno 9tq. u qoqq. oop aq sw 7 eqxq 3W ;age B TX[ Aoq aelp flO 3UWO [i1°cI U9 d[Ot JOJ 0TPCX OO 31oTq3A 90110a 9T Oq.ttt U3M pUC 3AT eqTq aqj p a enj oq P''ci pue qu - dth oq. Mct p9q.9flX;CUT I'Md /OOOeL 'Ct1 o; puriorne li 'uo'tC3.S aoqo cr'o'o 3t] oq. pDpuCt CM T.OTL1M j3UOiU OL )OO. IPk'cj tXC I3ptIfl I9ddC 3t 'pUC uoszad jeqj q.oq q.ncl opetitzr qzioqc oD wçt ai oq. pa puc sou 3jueq jo aptmq axc c papuct Aa.ctpiurE qno etaco ott uorad eqj, oc a - uçtatcoC 2trt.x.xco st Oqj q.cqq. arCic etuoq at qeqq. paeq. -i'flj 6 T cooxz3 Ljo tz1c.xrco acit otqaA, ql IeTlq. puc q.no .u1ddc 9t .tC9U UT4TS U00.9Ct C XDA3MOH 'jj Os ict3J q.ou pp quc3dth1 3qf 'saAuCo c q pazroo SOM zcs puc •dn otct z raAoi puc - c sci' co wa 'ott. eqq UT ArpUzrco -Pm o-T4 !jeT4m 'rr9q quC - ectctc atfl. 'reATxp OE LJ 'PUCCO JIK[JJ O .U3M pue UMO 02 'uo - w OtOqq.83 ummg 3tfl. JO p zroS aq UT p3ddos pct q ctq. purto; puC Cot wct±L 0 -[O-Eq9A T O40LTI pCMopoJ ''[ pue 'fi'd puc t'ta • COIJJO siTA ja peddOp u-33q pCt4 çJCJ 9,qj .i3JC °t°T'.' .tOq.Ota 3q. MO TI Oj oq. sxq OTjjO 30Od 3V (p3ac puctauo 301 1 0 d IcUOT91I OtJ 9 2sou T onq TaR aTIT 3UO3 uo q pinoc 3IOq 3'I qct. OdCflG CZt9OTJJO aCTiod 3qJ O umol CpcMo. 3u-[pc3.LI COM pUC CIOTtPA 30T1°ci atq. t3AO O0T3A0qOUt C MC$ JTG9. OU p'tp Ot4M aa P UCULUOD DOTTOcT TCUOTU Cqq Pue Co m o d ''M'cI 't3OTJJ0 O-OT I OCT aaq ~ o ç 9I3M urrq '4Th 'tLITIPUtLJ, 00,. pcoa C 3U0 1C? UTAXP 9I0Tt13A a O0,.0111 D trt 3CM O0,O9d$tI] 9OTI0cI C j/AcI JO &ITU.tOUl 3t MOU 0$ Op 3M pUC U013103p iO a Oj SUOSC9a XflO SAT2 pfl0M CM PTC2 3f '0,.UflOO PUOODS 3t tXO s.zC3c L JO CQUC0,UCG CIfl. t4OJM 3.X3JCUT 0,OU PTP Inq '$rC3& i. o - ;, - . . . U • II eqq. pas000e 1.srcJ - j ueqm qet q.deooe am uç tnnr U2 9qTpeJo 2 22M M1 seLij tflOO lelzrl 914 qqpt UT991e .ou .roj - B q.2 U0G29Z OU pUTJ U20 9/ U9Urnt2 S 9 TTfl 8H 'XW pI23 9ACtl SM • moj sue11edd8 eq trç axoo uo Iqnop &e BUTAJO S 9a ou trç ao P03joeC - ETI ueeq pq eq q.Eq .U2f[9dd2 eqq. Jo jUo$s eq. uAeç[aqGTp UTpazuo p2q q.ThoO I2I 914 q21fl. '0P4 Pue T o me d JO OOU3pTA9 314 3UTIdaooe UI Pa j ag pet latloo JeTal eq. Ieqj 'etx() 'spunozt tIT8tIl oml patrç2uoo AI°Tq 13dd2 jo uo -tq. -ced eq. eTq SIT JO UOG aOAOmOH Jo 9flO28O 2 p9Uej.UO0 1UtOOfl9 129d2 JO spunozrB eqj 9uTle q s j o p8eqeUI q.uewnoop eqj 123dd2 jo uojq.ed 2 eq o. qUeV8Iil .uewnoop xTTord pJ e}] 2fl eojeq q.u219dd2 aq. zroj pc cedd2 211U8H '.x '$UOG:red: roqo p1.12 aaAiP eqxq eqq. q peYo2cq ueeq P81.1 9Oq9A 1O.OU1 GTT. pU8 eq IL,,qI .nq paAiOAtr .ou SeM eq qeqj. S8P eouejep slIuelladde aq co IaLL UT oq.sd 914 JO J.03GTp 914 t31.J8 p33oecTq $8M 314 2t4 1'MCI p1O. $XJ OrtZBTI3dd2 814 '4814 99U9PT!Ø 8q U0 .IOU 1 UT14OU PT 28 pue q.uas peUT2mex .UeIT9dd2 314 UOTSGTW 3'I 914 0r 8 q.U8Odd8 314 p990008 814 UC14M q814 OOU3PTA9 St4 1.10 T2T.O,. 3141 16 p9U8fl8qO .10 petrçtU2Xe—S$0.13 .ou 82M 'pecleoGo pqt ow .19U92BcI 3u-c.&-c2 eq.1q oqq. .&q pejoeçq uaeq peq eqq.eqq. GzIaqq.o PU8 tuq petU.1O;U qu8edd2 31.4 pe.1eAooep 981k 1o.std et. U9141k q.eqq. P9e.G Lomed 'qUOJ aqq. UT qaas aaBuessed Ijal eqq. Jo. euods eqq. apTsuT ueppTq 91k UOçq.pirwiuie Jo spunoa 9 Pue TOqs-cd v [8OO.1214O JO aeq O1kl aeprm p9.1eAoosp 9tLIO14 OUTT.j.1 Obtq. pue ueqde[e e.xat punoJ eeoTre uowv 'euop GM jeqj ' Ioqe& eq. jo 140.1889 914j. $S9U1k oq. GU8TITATO"PU8 .1COTJJO '('1J 3m09 190 oq. t.'ira pe.onzr.Gtrç oq croo 314 oq. pe.bde.x I.'I%cI • UOT. 2 .S aoflOa eq. oq. ue.rp SeM Peot SIT 14TM CO3 JK[W alOTlq9A eq V . 1. -4- appellant at the R.C. Mièsion yard, the appellant said nothing and remained silent. PW.l was not challenged on that evidence. That clearly indicated that the appellant could not have been, as he alleged, under duress or "hijacked". The appellant 1new P.W.l was a police officer, and was asked directly by P.W.1 what he was carrying. If he were under duress he would iiiiediately have sought the help of P.W.l. Indeed the appellant in his evidence stated inter alia "The police found us near. the R.C. Mission. I had stopped there on my own. My motor vehicle in good order. It had no problem at all... When oross—examined he said: "When I stopped at the R.C. Mission I was not harmed though I àtopped on sty own". It was perfectly clear that the appellant was a free agent; he had stopped at his own wish at the R.C. Mission, and was free to do so. That piece of evidence extracted from the appellant clearly destroyed any suggestion that he was at any time under lir. Haulle pointed out that P.W.2 and •W.W.3 had stated. that the appellant had told them that he was hijacked. However at that time the appellant had already been arrested and was in custody ?nd that conversation occurred while P.W,l was radioing Police Headquarters for assistance. The appellant had had opportunities o4. as the trial court believed, "concoctingt" the hijack version. We are satisfied that the trial judge was right in rejecting the "hijackll version and in convicting the appellant as charged. lir. Haulle submitted that the motor vehicle TDM 203 should not have been forfeited. However in terms 'f section 78 (1) (d) of the Wildlife Conservation Act No. 12 of 1974 such a forfeiture is automatic. In terms of section 78(2) a proviso exists for the omer of such a vehicle to satisfy a court that he did not know : -5-. and could not by reasonable diligence have known that his vehicle was used in a manner rendering it liable for •forfciture. In this case no application was made to the trial court in terms of section 78 (2) and the order of forfeiture of the motor vehicle was in order. On sentence on the 1st count Mr. Haulle submitted, that the appellant was a first offender and was a young man of 21 years of age. The -Lrial court rightly found that it was a serious offence. However the maximum term of imprisonment is 15 years. It is only in,verf exceptional cases that an accused is sentenced to suffer the maximum sentence on a first offence. We do not find such exceptional circumstances here. We had therefore reduced the tern of imprisoment from 15 years to 12 ycrs in respect of the first count. DATE13'tDAR ES SMiAAN this 14th day of June, 1988. 0. ( A. NUSTAFA JUSTICE OF APPEAL - L.M. MAKAJVJE JUSTICE OF APPEAL A. M. A. OMAR JUSTICE OF APPEAL. I certify that this is a true cow of the original. (J6 H. MSOFPE) SENIOR DE2UTY REflISTPJiR