19890315 TZHC Dar es Salaam 1

----.~r ~·- W 'J;.JE ::rra:r C01JTIT O:i/ TA.I~:IA AT DAR ES SLLIVi.1:1 (PC) CRHIDt:iL 11.FJ?EJi.L NO" 7 OF 1986 (From th~ decision of the District Court of l/Iorogoro at lforogoro in Criminal Appeal lJo., 71 of 1986) Original Urban Court Criminal Case No .. 404 of 1986 - NY!ill01'TYO MWITA KICITERE o. • o o •• o. • • • • • ., • • • • o • ., o o •• o .- • • . • o • • APPELLI..J:TT versus REPUBLIC ., •••••••• • •• ., ............ ,. ••••• o., • • • • • • o •• • • • • • • • -.RESPONDENT JUDGl:'.ITINT KYl.ND0 2 J. The appellaJ.'lt- was charged on three co1..u1 ts for offences of criminal tres- pass9 threatening violence and mali_cious darnage to property., He was acquittccl by_ the Prima.17 Court but the complainant, GORDIL:ill.D s/o MGOWii.NC\ appealed the aquittal to the District Court of lforogoro 9 at Morogoro 0 The latter Court (Shilogile pm,1) allowed tb.e appeal by ·i;hc complainant, reversed the decision of the Primary Cou.rt and found that t!.,.e appellant was guilty of the offeno0s he was charged. 1-ri th in the Primary C.cn.i.rt and entered a conviction against '.J.im in respect of all the three offences., I·i:; ·i;hen sentencecl him_ to ·a. fine of shso200/= on each count 9 or imprisonment i'or two months10 The atpellant wc1.:J aggrieved by the decision of the District Court and he 1101:r appeals against it to this Court. The cr1..1.x o:c tl1e m3 '.tter is to be :fmmd in the follouing passage :from t:::c j~111ont of tl10 learned Principal Distric·!; Hogistrate•;;~ 11 Tax0he 3/5/86 9 ms,."litakiwa aliingia. katika s...1amba la mlalomik2.ji na kulcn.takata a:u ku:fyeka Diliogo na mgomba.7 1-ra,iu· vralll t--we. na kushuhudio., walioshuhudia 11i PW2 na 3, na wote wametoa ushcl"i6.i liaJ.1akmnani kuwa S:1amba hilo ni la mlalarnikaji na nihogo iliyo- fyokwa ni ;ya mlala.mikaji'o II:i.v--yo i].lippgundua uharibifu huo nd.iP,o 21:aamu.a lrurnshi tald. !vlshi takiwa nae alic:Lci lruwa shamba hilo ni lc:-.kc 9 na wo.la sip. la mlalamikaji 9 2,lipow2, na wanakijiji wa Kisoka 1984 9 linc1 ulmbwa wa elca 4 au 5 hivi 9 na nasl?,runba hayo yanapal~'llla. Hi k-:-mli ali:fyeka mihogo hiyo, lcld.ni anaclai ni yake na i'Tala sio YrJ. r;1lalamikaj:i. 9 alif'yeka ili kuyapa nafasi mab.indi aliyokuwa rune;y-cJ,- panda.11 · In other worcls, the basic dispute l)etwe0n the parties was the ownership of t:'"c land in relation to which the appellant is said to have- committed the. offcmccs charged in tJ:io case. _rlliother these offences wore commi. ttcd by the appellant or not really depended on who was the ti-..;i.e 01-mcr of tho land between him ( t:.,.o appcllru1t) a:nd the conplaim:..'1t• Tb.in being so 1 this court has hold in scv01·~,1 cases that whcro there is a dispute 2,0 to ownership of lnnd 9 it is usually acl- visablo that Col.li'.'ts should not :procood criEJ.inally against on offending p0.1:ty ( See KD3W}J.'J::. MOII/J1'.IEJ) v RE1-..,...LIDL]C 9 ( 1950) _TLR 321).. In this cnso of Ki bwan lh1c,1:1c::1 Vo Ro 9 M11z2.vas J .K. roforrea. also to SAID Jmu~ v R ( 1966) ECD 158 and obscrvcC:~- 11 T.l:.is Court, in c. cci,so w:.,.io~ . wno 011 o.11 £ours with t\c present co..oc scidi 'lihon in a case of crinin0-l trospass 9 a dispu:~c arises as to the 01-mership of tho l2J.1c.:., t;rn Court should not procood wi<L the crininal charge 0;1d sI1ould advise tho complainant to brL1g o.. civil action ·Go dotcrnil10 tho question of 01-morship,' L1 tho:c co.so tho p8.I'tios w0ro clirectocl to start n civil !',ction to dotornino tho question of owncrs.l,.ip 4 Tho..t boin& tho law there can po no doubt that had tho loarnocl Ilagistro..to properly clirectocl hio ii1il1D. to tho law applicable in such circunstancos 9 he ..rould not h,:::,ve ar:riYcd D.t ·Gho conclusion ho did 6 11 In a somew].mt si□ilc.:r cnso J,.;o those 00,sos nbovo 9 the CG.so of ELIKD1illL GERSOlJ & 6 O'l'tlERS v. R., (CA) Cr. I~pp~ No, 10 of 1985 (unreported), tho Cou:r·c of li.ppoal of Tan,.;o.;i.1ia held or obsorvoc'd- "Here tho- e,ppollants had plc.imocl c. right to rennin on their plots, tho dispute between thorn and tho Lutheran Mission was of a purely Civil charo.ctor, and in such circunstanccs tho Crininal lm·r should not and. could no·G legi tirac..tely have boon invoked by tl10 Lutheran Mission,r, T::12,·~ could amount to an abuse of criminal procosso" In tl1is case of Elikundn & 6 others vi!! R, t:10 Lutheran Mission of Ho.n!::::a, Sano, h;::i.cl given certain indd:v:i.dual vil12.gos pieces of land ( ·l;o plant tomporn.ry crops) on t12..nd over which it held 2, RigM; of Occupancy., 'i11.1c villa.0 ors were supposed{ vr:.ce.tGi the pieces of lane_ by 2., 1 o,. 73, but so□c of tho villagers, : ;including Elihmda 2nd tho 6 othoro, refused to vacate ·i;he lc1.nd., The Nisr::ion referred tl10 no:ctcr to,: inter alia, tho police in Mosl:i who charged thee wi·t;:1 crioinal trospo.,so under s&299 (b) of ·i/,.o Penal Code. As no-eccl, when the E1::,;c·co1· roac!1ed the C01.1.:rt of i'.ppeal, the Court c1eplorocl tho atop of c~1argi11g thpso people with criminal offences and ilctClo ·c:ic <1bov0 quotoc1 obsorvations;i I'Tl. my opinion, in tho inst211t Cc>,oo too 9 tho two courtr, below were 1-;Tcn~;· to entertain a crioinal case against the O..i)pcllai:~t when tho issue for doter- □ ination first, i.o,, tho qvmersb.ip of t:.:.o land/ was essontinllY a Civil one .. •foe courts should. have 'a.clvised tho cooplo,il1cl1t to file a Civil suH in order for tb..at issue to be clet0rr.1inodo By not doing ·t;~1d aml instead prooooding criminclly against the ,:,,ppollcint thoy as I have sr.ic:., er.red., I therefore nllow tho c.r;pcc:.l brought by -~).10 o.ppGllant to tb.:'_s court 2.ncl set asido the conviction 011-tcrocl ---- - against hia by tho District Courto I cr-12.~1 a.nd sot 0,sido tho sentences ir.:.po20C:L on hin following -~be conviction anc:_ cliroct that if ho ( t!rn 0,ppolla11t) h2,o p;:i,id fines~ which he appeaxs to hnvo done, tho nonoy so paid is to be refunded to hino JUDGE DL'l ES S.;-l,AJ1.H. 15th I-fr:rch, 1939.-