20010404 TZHC Mtwara2

a '7 I IN TRE HIGE C0

AT MIAPA (MTWIRi REGISTRY)

PPELLTE JURISDICTION CRIMINL .PPEL NO. 53 OF 2000 ORI GIN2L CRIMINtL OAE NO 260 OP 2000

OF TRE DISTRICT COURT OF MSASI JT MSASI BEFORE: JOB000 MSSIT0 ESQ., S. D. M2GISTRATE OSCJiR MiTHh.YO OIPPELLN 0 versus: TEE REPUBLIC000 00000RESPONDENT 0

JUDGMENT KJI, J0 The appellant OSCIR M.ThAYO was charged with arson c/s 319(a) of the Penal Code Cap 16 When the charge was read over to him he pleaded guilty0 When the facts were explaifled to him he accepted them to be true and correct. He was consequently found guilty as charged on his wn plea of guilty, and was convicted accordingly9 He was sentenced to 5 years imprisonment. His appeal is against conviction and sentence0 He is challenging the conviction on two grounds, namely:- 1. - That when he set fire to the complainant's 1ouse he was drunk. 2 That he pleaded guilty because he thought if he did so the matter would be referred back home for a possible amicable settlement-. In reply the learned State Lttorney who represented the Republic at the hearing of this appeal Mr. Masaju said the appeal against conviction should not be entertained by virtue of S. 360(1) of the Criminal Procedure lct., 1985 because the appellant had pleaded guilty and his plea was irneauivocal0 He 1. said this case is not covered by he exceptions prescribed in the case of LRENCELPINGVsR(1983)TLR 1 66n The learned State Attorney went bn replying that intodcation is not a defence in cases of this natuie by virtue of S. 14(1) of the Penal Code CaD 16, The learned State ttorney - -- "O 2 went on replying that if the appellant was rea1ly.drunk hen he committed that offence he shouldji't have failed to say

so at his trial 9 because at that time he was not d.rUflkb I have carefully considered the apellant's grounds of appeal and the reply thereat by the learr.ed State .ittorney. I have also carefully gone through the record of the trial Court. Indeed the appellant's appeal against conviction cannot succeed.. He pleaded guilty0 When the facts were exlained to him he accepted them to be true and correct. His plea was unequivocal. He was properly convicted0 AS properly stated by the learned State attorney, the circurnsances of this case do not fall under the excptiohs laid ddwn in the case b± LAWRENCE cited above.. tLs f.r as the defence of intoxication is concerned 9 this is just n afterthought0 Had he really been drunk to an extent of not knowing as to what he was doing or what he was doing was wrong, he wouldn't have failed to say so at the trial - as by then he was not drunk. Had he done so necessary action should have been taken under S. 14 of the Penal Code Cap 16. His appeal against conviction has no merits and is hereby di smi as ed. Zs far as sentence is concerned 9 the sentence of 5 years imprisonment is not excessive 9 especially that the house he set on fire was of a woman who must have suffered a great deal. His appeal against sentence is also dismissed0 All in all this appeal has been dismissed in its entirety. S o PT KskJTt

JUDGE 4.4. 2001 Court: Judgment has been delivered in the presence of Nr. Masaju and Hezron learned State Attorneys and in the absence of, the appellant who does not wish to be present this O4fthday of April 9 2001 \j • 1 . - / S. N. KAJI - JUDGE 4.4.2001 B/C: - - R/A.