19830812 TZHC Mbeya

H; IIJ. Ta IIIGH ATMBEY8 -ELLE JUBISDI CT ION /theya Registry) 'thThIINL lL.JL'NO. 107 OF 1981 OBIGINL CRBiaNL csi NO. 436 OF 1980 OF THE DIRICT COURT OP LIBLY-i DIST1IJT AT LhiYA Befores P. R. Bateyunga, Eq., ResidentJW1agiStrate • • • • • • •• • , • . •• . ,• .. iPELLJT N • J • C. 11Và.ISU1iO • , , •. VhBSUS THE HPUIC , .e....•ss. •... •...••••a ••• EJ1SP0NDIT CE.RGE: &bi with oeno .42a5. and 286 of the Penal Code,

JDENT MtINYERA, - J. qwv ~ The appellant was charged jointly with anot& for robbery. It wa satect that during the night of 10/11/8 the ap' Jiant and bi robbed the complainant of his various artio3ea, :lothing, sewing machjjie, • radio cassettes and record player. Some artici. v;oro seized .f.roni th -C appellant such ae radio cassette, bed sheets ot The proscutior jed \. to prove their case and both, the appellant ari b!s co—accused were acquitted. However the trial rna4strated ordered that some of the Jtva aeized from the appellant be 'etarned to the coLp1ainant and other ç treated ae uncj.aimd property and handed to Against this of restitution of property the appellant brou tüs appeal. I find that there were rival claims over th rticles found in paio. of the appellant. The trial mgistrate found t 11, the prosecutiàn d failed to prove the identity of the appellant aEH robber. Of.cour they SN\ al?o failed to prove the iderrt1ication of the aicles found in poeson the appellant otherwise the doctrine of rech. possession would have appl,,4ed. That being so it w9 then eXroneous to iepri'e the ap.pel1.t of hi4 property. I allow thenppeal. I sot asiie the order of the tia3. magisat, •JJ a.r±icles fouzid in the apellant's posion skJ4 restored +.o hjm.pr their vali.e thereof if thoTh.ve been sold. At Iv beya, F .