Judgment Patrice Odongo V R

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA IN THE SUB-REGISTRY OF MWANZA

AT MWANZA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 11749 OF 2024 (Appeal from the decision of the District Court of Nyamagana at Mwanza before Hon. V.L. Mugendi- SRM, dated 7th December, 2023 in Criminal Case No. 66 of 2021) PATRICE GALUS ODONGO …………….………………….……………..…APPELLANT

VERSUS THE REPUBLIC …………………………………………………..…………. RESPONDENT

JUDGMENT 2nd September & 17th October, 2024 ITEMBA, J. Naturally, a family is supposed to be a safe haven. However, it appears that, sometimes, a family member will cross a person quicker than a stranger. This is what is alleged to have transpired in the present appeal. Before the the District Court of Nyamagana District the appellant Patrice Galus Odongo was charged with two counts of stealing contrary to sections 258 (1) and 265 of the Penal Code, Cap 16 R.E 2019. In the first count it was alleged that the appellant stole cash amounting to TZS 299,000,000/=, the property of Rose Lameck Airo t/a Denies Lameck Airo. In the second count it was alleged that the appellant stole cash amounting to TZS. 136,722,000.56 the property of La Kairo Industries. 1 At the trial, the prosecution paraded a total of 9 witnesses namely; Rose Lameck Airo (PW1), David Lameck Airo (PW2), E7722 D SGT James (PW3), F 5007 D/SGT Bahati (PW4), G 6932 D/CPL Butugu (PW5), John Baptist Mugonya (PW6), Victor Ochieng (PW7), Denis Lameck La Kairo (PW8); and Johnson Mwijage Byenobi (PW9). They also produced a total of 21 exhibits which are; the appellant’s cautioned statement (exhibit P1); appellant’s apology letter (exhibit P2); seizure certificate (exhibit P3); Extra Judicial Statement (exhibit P4); Business license issued to Denis Lameck Airo for a restaurant business (exhibit P5); TIN number issued to Denis

Lameck Airo (exhibit P6); Business Licence of Lakairo Industries Group co. Ltd for sub-wholesale business (exhibit P7); TIN number issued to Lakairo Industries Group Company Limited (exhibit P8); Ledger Book for goods from La Kairo Industries Group Companies Limited (exhibit P9); La Kairo group Company Ltd delivery notes (exhibit P10); Gilitu Enterprises Ltd delivery notes (Exhibit P11) Gilitu Enterprises Ltd. Tax Invoice (Exhibit P12); Tax invoice from Germanna Printers (Exhibit P13); Tax invoice from TPS (exhibit P14); Bank statement. Equity bank (Exhibit P15); Sale Agreement between Susana Abongo and Rajabu Odongo (Exhibit P16); Sale Agreement of Ojuwang, Joannes Oruka and 2 David Odongo (Exhibit P17); Sale Agreement between Silas Salamba and the appellant (Exhibit P18); Certificate of NBAA of Johnson M. Byenobi (Exhibit P19); Certificate of Practice NBAA Johnson M. Byenobi (Exhibit P20) and the audit report (Exhibit P21). In the other side, the defence had two witnesses the appellant himself and David Rajabu Odongo (DW2) The prosecution’s case was that the appellant, Patrice Galus Odongo, was employed as a salesman and supervisor in the business owned by his aunt, one Rose Lamek Airo (PW1), trading as Dennis Lamek Airo, and another a business known as Lakairo Industries. That, sometimes in June 2021 PW1 requested for the finance report of the business and she noted there is

a loss. She inquired about it and the appellant admitted to be responsible. That, the appellant promised to repay the money because he used the same to build the house and to start a business in gold. PW1 conducted an internal auditing which showed a loss of TZS 435,722,000.56/= and that, although the appellant promised to repay, he did not, instead, he disappeared. Following a full trial being conducted, the appellant was convicted. He was sentenced to serve 473 days’ imprisonment for each count, both sentences to run concurrently. Further, the trial court ordered for the 3 appellant’s properties to be forfeited and sold in order to pay back the complainant the relevant amount stated in the charge. The appellant was not amused. It is against such court’s decision; this appeal has been preferred with the following grounds: That, the Honorable Trial Court erred in law and fact: 1. in convicting and sentencing the appellant basing on weak, contradictory, inconsistency, uncorroborated and wholly unreliable prosecution witnesses’ evidence.

2. In convicting and sentencing the appellant while the Respondent’s evidence was at variance with the charge.

3. For failure to analyze and evaluate properly the evidence of the appellant hence led to the decision that is prejudicial on part of the appellant.

4. In convicting and sentencing the appellant basing on defective charge.

5. For failure to hold that the respondent case was tainted with procedural irregularities and ill will; and 6. In convicting and sentencing the Appellant while the Respondent’s case was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. When the appeal was scheduled for hearing, the appellant was represented by advocate Masoud Mwanaupanga while Japhet Ngusa, state 4 attorney appeared for the respondent. I will not reproduce their full submissions as it will feature in responding to the grounds of appeal. The appellant’s counsel argued the 5th ground separately and the rest of the grounds were argued jointly. Starting with the 5th ground, the learned counsel challenged admissibility of exhibit P5, P6 and P12 Business license, TIN certificate and Tax Invoice under the name of Gilitu Enterprises. That, these exhibits were neither read nor explained before the court. In respect of this ground, it is worthy noting that, in this matter at hand, the trial was done before introduction of Judiciary Transcription and Translation Application System (TTS) and Case Management System (CMS) therefore the original proceedings were handwritten. I had time to compare the handwritten and typed proceedings. In the handwritten proceedings; it shows that, after exhibits P5 and P6 were admitted, they were read before the court. I have also noted that, the counsel for the appellant did not object for these

two exhibits to be admitted. Further, after admission, PW1 proceeded to explain about the contents of the exhibits. He said, ‘TIN number, the license and TIN number used as liberty shop and Dennis Lamek Airo is my son’. Therefore, even if the witness did not read the details, here you can 5 see that, she explained about the contents. I find that the appellant understood the contents of the exhibits and he was not prejudiced. I'm saying this because the effect of reading the exhibit is to explain the content and the content were explained clearly by PW1 after admission. With regards to exhibit P12 (Tax invoice from Gilitu Enterprises), the court admitted it first, then it admitted exhibit 13 (tax invoice from Jamana Printers Ltd) and exhibit P14 (Tax invoice from TPS). According to the original records, the court recorded; “Court-exhibit P13, P14 and P15 read before the court.” In my view, there was a slip of pen. I am convinced that, what were read were exhibits P12, P13 and P14 because, those were the documents which were produced in chronological order and when the court was entering this record, at this stage, exhibit P15 (Bank Statement) was not yet produced or admitted. P15 was admitted later and again the court recorded; “Court-Exhibit P15 read before the court” The appellant’s counsel argued that exhibit P10 & P11 were admitted collectively. To him this was unprocedural.

I agree with the appellant that 6 the exhibits were collectively admitted. Yet, I find the complaint baseless because first, there is no law which prohibits admission of exhibits collectively. I've noted that these exhibits both were actually delivery notices, and they were documents which are related, I find it was proper and convenient to admit them collectively. Secondly, the appellant was not prejudiced because after admission of the said documents they were read before the court for him to understand. Further, page 88 of typed proceedings shows that, even the appellant’s counsel did not object to its admission. So, this is as well an afterthought. Moving to the admissibility of the extrajudicial statement, which is Exhibit P4, the counsel for the appellant explained that it was objected, but the trial court admitted it anyway. He thinks that a trial within a trial was supposed to be conducted. As per records, the learned counsel told the trial court that ‘the appellant was induced to deliver that statement under force’. Then, the state attorney replied that the objection was not a point of law and it was in compliance with chief justice's rules and the appellant was free when he recorded his statement. The trial court admitted the extrajudicial statement because it considered that the objection was not based on point of law. I will disagree with the trial magistrate

because, the 7 appellant’s counsel stated that before making the statement, he was induced. In other words, the appellant stating that the statement was not recorded voluntarily, that is a point of law. It is a legal position that once the voluntariness of an extrajudicial statement or cautioned statement is questioned, everything must stop and the trial court must conduct an inquiry in the form of trial within a trial to ascertain whether the statement was voluntarily made before accepting it as evidence. There are several cases to support that position. I will mention one of Twaha Ali and 5 others v R, Criminal Appeal No. 78 of 2004. Considering that the Appellant's council was objecting based on voluntariness, it was important for the trial court to conduct an inquiry. Absence of inquiry renders the extrajudicial statement incompetent as it was not admitted procedurally. Therefore, the extra judicial statement will be expunged from the records. The case of Godfrey Elisian & 3 Others vs Republic vs. R, Criminal Appeal No.39 cited by the respondent’s state attorney does not at all speak of extra judicial statements. Moving further, the appellant’s counsel complained about the variance between the charge and evidence. With regard to the 1st count he submitted that; the appellant is charged with stealing TZS 299,000,000/= 8 property of Rose Lameck Yairo t/a Denis Lameck Yairo.

Whilst, in the whole evidence there was no evidence showing there was a business under the name of Rose Lameck Yairo t/a Denis Lameck Yairo. That, according to exhibit P6 which is the TIN certificate, the business was of Denis Lameck Yairo. It was submitted further that; the charge was in variance with evidence because in the 2nd count the appellant is charged with stealing of TZS 136,722,056/= of La Kairo Industries but the evidence by PW1 shows the stolen property belongs to ‘Lameck Airo Companies’ at page 14 and to Lakairo Investment Co. That, PW2 recognized the victim as La-Kairo Industries Group Limited Liberty Branch, while the same PW2 stated the money belongs to Lakairo Industries Group. That, PW8 mentioned the stolen properties belongs to La Kairo Investment Company. He pressed further that, PW2 produced Exhibit P7 which is a Licence of La Kairo Industries Group Co. Ltd. That, PW4 testified the victim to be Denis La Kairo. I was referred to the case of Mrs. Jane Dewasi [Legal representative of Martin Dewasi] vs M/s. Erdeman Co. T. Ltd and Another Land Case No. 44/2015 (unreported) to the effect that, a company has its legal personality and it should be recognized as such. 9 He submitted further that, the respondent had a duty to prove its case according to the charge sheet as stated in different cases including that of DPP v. Godfrey Michael Mwarongo @ Godfrey

Gabriel Criminal Appeal No. 116/2020. Mr. Ngusa generally submitted that, there was no variance because the prosecution evidence with the charge. That, under section 234 (3) of Criminal Procedure Act, Cap 20 R.E 2022, the charge was amended at page 79 of proceedings to remove the variance. That, regarding the presence of other people at the shop, he said that, it was the appellant who had power over the business and he was the superiors and overall administrator of the business. That, at page 74 PW8 explain that the appellant was managing the business and had a role of preparing and sending reports. That, Denis went to supervise other business in Iringa. That, Rose became sick, Denis went to Iringa and the appellant remained the sole supervisor in Mwanza. That, the appellant admits to steal the money and how he used it, in the apology letter (Exhibit P2). That, the appellant in the Extra Judicial Statement admitted also that he bought the house, plots and started business. In respect of these variances, it is this court’s findings that the victim is having several businesses and it has been referred by different names by 10 different witnessed. Nevertheless, PW1, Rose Lameck Airo told the court that her business is registered under the name of Dennis Lameck Airo. She also stated that the appellant was the seller and supervisor in that business which is a shop located at Liberty

and the appellant had a duty to deposit money at Equity Bank. She also mentioned that there is a business known as La Cairo Investment and the supervisor and accountant is Dennis Airo. PW1 was recalled later and clarified that they have two businesses and two licenses; one under the name of Denis Lamek Airo and the other under the name of La Cairo Industries Group Company Limited. She produced the two licenses and two TIN numbers as exhibits P5, P6, P7 and P8. Exhibit P5 is a business license which is issued to Denis Lameck Airo to run a restaurant. Then, exhibit P7 is business license issued to La Cairo Industries Group Company Limited to run the business of sub wholesale. Moving back to the charge sheet, the first count it is alleged that, TZS 299,000,000/= was stolen from Rose Lamek Airo trading as Denis Lameck Airo and that is In the second count, 136,722,000/= is alleged to have been stolen from La Cairo Industries and that is Therefore, what is gathered from this record is that; One the victim owns two businesses one in the name of La Cairo Industries Group Company Limited and this is for 11 sub wholesale and the second business is under the name of David Lameck Airo and this is for running a restaurant. The name Dennis Lameck Airo was stated by PW1 to be a business name on which PW1 is doing business. Consequently, so long as the business is registered under the name

of Denis Lameck Airo and there is evidence that Rose Lameck Airo who is the wife of Denis Lameck Airo and she was the one who employed the appellant I don't see if there's any variance which contradict the prosecution’s case and confuse the appellant. Two; even the appellant himself in his evidence at page 110 of the proceedings he told the court that he was dealing with the business under the name of La Cairo Industries Group Company Limited located at Liberty Street from May 2018 but he signed the contract in 2019. The appellant also acknowledged Rose Lameck Airo as his aunt because her husband is the brother to his father and he stated that he had the duty to receive customers and serve them, to do sales and deposit money to the bank. That, there were nine workers at the shop. He mentioned their names and he also explained that with regard to the second business there is no shop under the name of Denis Lameck Airo but it's a restaurant and that he had never been employed in that restaurant of Denis Lameck but the shop used to supply goods with La 12 Cairo Industries. Therefore, the shop which is at Liberty Street owed some goods by La Cairo Industries worth of 140 million. So, the appellant explained the relationship between the two companies and that they exist and he acknowledged that one is La Cairo Industries Limited and the other one is a restaurant under the name of

Dennis Lameck. I have also careful read the cross examination made for the appellant. No doubt was raised with regards to identity of La Kairo Industries and its owner. Under these circumstances, I see no contradiction or variance in the evidence which prejudiced the appellant. On issues of confusion to the party, I will refer the case of CRDB Bank Limited vs. Issack B. Mwamasika; Civil Appeal No, 139 of 2017 (unreported) the Court of Appeal said; “If anything, the name of the 3rd respondent appearing in the Memorandum of Appeal has inadvertently used the initial "DG” instead of "GD" We believe that the inadvertence did not occasion any confusion as to the identity of the 3rd respondent, nor did it occasion any injustice to either party.” The contention that PW1 was not a competent person to tender exhibit P16, P17 and P18 need not to detain me for long. In the case of the DPP vs Mirzai Pirbakhshi @ Hadji and 3 others, Criminal Appeal No. 493 of 2016 it was held by the court of appeal at page 7 and 8 that; 13 “A person who at point in time possesses anything, a subject matter of trial, as we said in Kristina Case is not only a competent witness to testify but he could also tender the same…the test for tendering the exhibit therefore is whether the witness has knowledge and he possessed the thing in question at some point in time, albeit short.” (emphasis added). In this matter

at hand, there was no dispute that PW1 was in possession of the said exhibit. According to the evidence of PW1 at page 91 of the proceedings, the said documents which are sale agreements of three plots were surrendered to her because the appellant uses stolen money to build on the said plots. During cross examination DW2 said at page 128 that; “it is not true that the document of exhibit P16 and P18 were not handled to PW1 so that to clear the money which he steals to her” Therefore, so long as PW1 was in possession of exhibit P16, P17 and P18 he was a competent person to tender the same as evidence. The fifth ground of appeal thus lacks merit. Having responded to the 5th ground, I will move to the remaining grounds which where argued jointly. The learned counsel submitted that exhibit P9 a ledger book shows the products which come from the company to the shop but does not show 14 if it was the appellant who was receiving those goods. That, exhibit P9 was an important document relied by auditor. That, the Stock Sheet was not produced in court to show the amount of stock. It was only produced for identification. That, Delivery note was produced as exhibit P10 & P11 but most of them were not signed by the appellant but Victor. That, exhibit P10 & P11 were also relied by auditors. Mr. Mwanaupanga further submitted that, the Bank statement of the company Lakairo Ltd was not

produced in court although some of the payments from sales were done in that account. That, PW9 (Auditor) said he did audit from January, 2021 but the charge covers May, 2018. That, PW1 stated that in 2018 when the alleged theft occurred there was also Denis Lameck Yairo. That, there was no financial report prior to audit and PW9 admitted to this fact hence the loss might have occurred at earlier years. That, PW2 testified to have come to knew that there is a loss of Tshs. 140,858,056 at page 35, while at the charge sheet there are different figures. That, PW3 at page 38, (arresting officer) states that the appellant admitted to have stolen TZS 380,000,000/=. To him, this also vary with the charge. That, the appellant’s defence was not considered. That at page 117 the appellant said he used to deposit the money in the company 15 account that aspect was not considered. That, the appellants defence that the cautioned statement was recorded following torture was not considered as well as the fact that there were 9 staff at the shop and each could sell any product and each could deposit money to the bank. The state attorney submitted with regards to the amount of stolen money that, the total amount of stolen money was TZS 435,722,000.56/= as appearing in the charge sheet and supported by the External Audit Report (exhibit P21). That, the judgment also acknowledges the same amount

to have been stolen. That, extra judicial statement was taken without force and was the key document used to convict the appellant. Finally, he submitted that, the defence was considered by court but the appellant corroborated the prosecution’s case by failing to bring evidence of source of his income used to build and that he had no proof that he banked money at La Kairo Group. The said David Lameck Airo told the court that he is a director of finance at Lakairo Industries Group Company Limited and he has the duty to supervise the company. PW2 explained that Lakairo Industries Group Limited Liberty Branch is supervised by the appellant, Patrice Odongo, but the owner is Lakairo Industries Group. 16 I have gone through the audit report. According to the report, the period for investigation is November 2020 to June 2021. The investigation was done at the shop belonging to Rose Lamek Airo located at Liberty Street, Mwanza. This investigation was done upon the request by Rose Lamek Airo, who is the director of the La Cairo Industries Group Company Ltd. and it was done following suspicions on theft committed at the shop by the appellant. The loss summary is as follows; Loss related to goods from La Cairo Industries Group Company Ltd. is TZS 136,722,056. Loss related to exercise books and edible oils TZS 299,000,000 and the total loss is TZS 435,720,000. I have taken note of the

complaints by the appellant. In my view all these arguments are devoid of merit because it was proved by prosecution evidence that, the appellant was overall supervisor of the businesses on which the loss occurred. Further, the evidence of the Accused person himself corroborated prosecution’s evidence. Exhibits P1, P2 and P18 were to the effect that, the appellant took money from the businesses and convert it into his personal use, like buying plots, building houses, buying a motor vehicle and engaging to mining activities. 17 With regards to proof of the exact money stolen, as I have said, the appellant admitted to have stolen the money by omitting to deposit it at the victim’s bank account. I have gone through the cautioned statement he states I have stolen more than TZS 140,000,000/=. Then he states that stealing was done at different occasions, and then she stole not less that TZS 350,000,000/= and gave it to his mother. He also speaks of stealing TZS 30,000,000/- for house construction and then 40,000,000/= for buying maize in Mpanda. The total is TZS 420,000,000/=. The Audit Report which covers the period when the appellant was the supervisor (May 2018 to June 2021) establish that the loss amount is TZS 435,722,000.56/=. There is a difference of TZS 15,722,001. Nevertheless, I have considered that there is an admission from the appellant himself at different

occasions, even though he admitted to have stolen a lesser amount. As long as theft is admitted and the appellant states that he was stealing cash, at different occasions, it is very likely for him to mention a different amount from what was actually stolen. Therefore, I find it safe to rely on exhibit P21 the Audit Report which shows that the loss amounts are TZS. 435,722,000.56/=. The last contention by the appellant is that the defence was not considered. He defended himself that, there were 9 staffs at the shop who 18 also deposited the money at the bank. I have read page 29 of the judgement, the trial court considered this defence but found it weak because the appellant failed to call the co-workers to prove the said allegations. As I have said herein, it was proved in this matter that, the appellant was supervisor of all other workers and he has confessed himself in the cautioned statement(P1), exhibit P2 (apology letter); and during cross examination. At page 123 of the proceedings the appellant said; “Exhibit P2 it holds my hand writing. According to exhibit P2 I stole cash money at the shop of complaint. It is true that, stolen money I used to build the house Utegi and Kanyama area, to brought the plot a Nyamadoke, to build the house at kanyama to bought kirikuu motorcycle, to do minerals business with Papii and do business with my aunt at Buhongwa area” During

re-examination the appellant never clarified these statements. In the case of Emmanuel Stephano v. R, Criminal Appeal No. 413 of 2018 (unreported), the court of appeal said; “The learned State Attorney cited to us our decision in the case of Jacob Asegelile Kakune v. Republic, 139 in which we reiterated the position that an accused person who confesses to a crime is the best witness. We may as well say it right here, that we have no problem with that principle because in a deserving situation, no 19 witness can better tell the perpetrator of a crime than the perpetrator himself who decides to confess. (emphasis added) With regards to the cautioned statement that it was not voluntarily recorded, I am of considered view that the trial court was correct on his ruling on trial within trial that the appellant’s cautioned statement was voluntary recorded in presence of independent witness Emiliana Salonge (JPW2), the aunt of the appellant who was called to witness in accords of the appellant’s wishes. The cautioned statement was further corroborated by prosecution witnesses, the appellant’s testimony together with exhibits P2 and P21. To finalise, the offence of stealing is established under section 258 (1) of the Penal Code which states: ‘(1) A person who fraudulently and without claim of right takes anything capable of being stolen, or fraudulently converts to the use of any person

other than the general or special owner thereof anything capable of being stolen, steals that thing.’ According to the auditing report, the loss occasioned at the business is TZS 435,720,000. I find that, there's evidence that the appellant admitted before the family meeting and before PW1 that he had stolen the 20 money and he's going to replace it before he disappeared. Admission is reliable when it is done involuntarily. Second, if that is not enough, the appellant also wrote an apology letter. I've gone through the details of the letter which is Exhibit P2 and in translation it says, the appellant Patrice Galuso-Odongo, admits that he was working at the shop of Mama Lakairo Industries Mwanza and he was taking money by cash and he used the same money to build a house at Otegi in Kanyama to buy a plot at Nyamadoke and that he worked together with her aunt in the business in Buhongwa, a shop business, also in building a house at Kanyama. Also, he bought Kirikuu which is a motor vehicle and he started a business of mineral. But it didn't go well and he's apologising for not being honest and telling the truth at the right time because he didn't even tell his parents and he was worried that if he disclosed this it will affect the marriage of his aunt because his aunt's husband did not know anything about this. So, based on the details of this letter, I think it speaks everything

about the appellant being responsible with the loss which has occurred. It was admitted before the court as evidence and he was repeating that he stole the money and he's apologising. Secondly, in the cautioned statement the appellant has admitted to have stolen money from the victims. Reading the 21 cautioned statement, the appellant stated that he admitted to have stolen more than 140 million from the business and that he did not involve anyone because he believed that he will return the money before her employer notices. Then at the last page, he says that the total money which he took from the business is about 380,000,000/=. To me, these two pieces of evidence are strong enough and satisfactory in proving that it was the appellant who stole the money from these two businesses and even though there were other people working under him but he was the supervisor, he was the one who is in a position to do this stealing. Based on this evidence, I conclude that the case against the appellant was proved beyond reasonable doubt. Finally, there is an aspect of forfeiture order which was issued by the trial court. The appellant’s counsel has moved the court to dismiss the appeal and set aside the order. The learned state attorney did not respond on it. According to Exhibit P2, the said properties are a house located at Utegi, a house located at Kanyama, a plot at Nyamadoke, the

business in Buhongwa which is co owned by the appellant’s aunt, a shop business, another house at Kanyama, a motor vehicle famously known as Kirikuu and mineral business. It is this court’s findings that there is a connection 22 between the appellant, the offences committed and the properties acquired. Therefore, much as there is evidence of acquisition of the properties by the appellant following stealing, these properties are proceeds of crime and the appellant should not benefit thereof. Further, Section 351(3) of the CPA states that: (3) The power conferred by this section upon the court shall include the power to make an order for the forfeiture or confiscation or for the destruction or for the delivery to any person of such property, but shall be exercised subject to any special provisions regarding forfeiture, confiscation, destruction, detention or delivery contained in the written law under which the conviction was had or in any other written law applicable to the case. (emphasis supplied). This section empowers the court to make forfeiture orders subject to other provisions which the conviction was had. The appellant herein was charged and subsequently convicted of the offence of stealing which is created by the Penal Code. Looking at the Penal Code, section 25(e) empowers the court to issue several punishments including forfeiture. Consequently, I find that the

forfeiture order was correctly made in terms of section 351(3) of the CPA read together with section 25 (3) of the Penal 23 Code. Issuing of forfeiture order is a recognized approach of deterring people from profit motivated offences like the one the appellant was convicted of. In final analysis, the prosecution managed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. This appeal is devoid of merit and it is hereby dismissed. The trial court’s decision on conviction, sentence and forfeiture order is affirmed. It is so ordered. Right of appeal fully explained to the parties. DATED at MWANZA 17th Day of October, 2024. L.K.J. ITEMBA

JUDGE Judgment delivered under my hand and court’s seal in the presence of the appellant, Mr. Masoud Mwanaupanga learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Japhet Ngusa State Attorney for the respondent and Ms. G Mnjari, RMA. 24