19851207 TZHC Mtwara

IN J:fi_::.: .U.-:0.H C(l\fRT Ol!' TANZANIA ·1 ' 'I . •-· ...~ ~ __li;~x-:L-~ Ar'.i:~.L1.J1-,. ~J~ d ,, L,.(1.L:.:iJIGf.1-iJN -r,· I -,~.a·· H.i. -· ri,.,u·1),r, \JV n )·rv~r \. J.. v .. 1 L . -·t,J+ ,{J?lYi'AL Nu ..,)2 vr 1985 J...L. . ,_ .J. _ .L.J • ORIG IN.AL ClUlV1L.(~. . ; 1 C.c. SE NO. 59 OF 1984 / OF :CHE DI3fRI0 r O\..°L '{.I: vi dONu.B •~ DI ;•:i:RIC'.l~ 1 I] l AT 30 :W···J~-i.. T·- Be'f6re B.M. Lu.anda\, _tsq, R83ID ..ii~.J: lViAGL3TRA':J:B 'I PEI'EH. Ki..11~.JA .•.• • ti• • • • • • • . • Ai.;.fELLt.. NJ~ j (0riginal Accused) ,i versus I •-y "\ ·,r-,3 --ri 'I lLJ!i..t"1uJ J.JlV •• ·::, , '1--()''NDEf,,ITI 11...Wb..i.. . 11 i.1.1.· • ·• •. •. · kOrigiual Iro~ecutor) J, ' ,· JUDu:lViENT ;: Msumi, J. 'i i :1 . A_pf)ellan::; vlich J..nd convicted of one count 11 . ·. o:C causin6 deatin t.i.li'0c. ,.i.l .. a.:ft>_.:,ou.s driving contrary to s.ecti_on 40(1), 63(2)(a.) anC:.. k7(1) of the Road J:raffi-; Act,- 197~. He was sent;enced. to ibo.:i..,isonment I ·:! .... for fou.r years and disqualified from dri vi::(:, for one ye_L.r. rhi.-3 appeal . u ;is against both conviction ci!t:.. d .s0ntence., !1 ' . I At the material time a_r>~'.,e~.l.ant was_ dr._ving a_ lorry behind a landrove:2 Wilich viras:; oeing driven oy F. vi~ 3 ,1 4t is the case for the r.rose pm:;ion that when P. W, 3 . 1 , II approached a road junct.ion h;e indicated tp.2.t he -,vas intending to turn to the

rig.ht. However, in defiance to the said signal appell2.11t depided to overtake the 'I J.androver and ..;onseque::i 1:;ly h,e causec. coll~. ...:;~on oi' tlle two vehicles. Also two pede!st~ians wno vv ..:re -")re.~umal)ly walkin0°· off' t., 0 road '. ✓ --2 _;e ..r{nocked ,, down JC cie tth. • •\ . Ap~ell~1t vehewently re~u~e k ' d th"is a~~l 0bacion.. He I argued that the driver of the landrover decided. to tutan ,, to the right suddenly c3.f :;e.r /L had earlie:r;- indicated that he intended to tc,l.:.:· _·Llo -\.;iie left. In . other words -. appellant decided to 1L'oceedi ahead of the land.rover after the driver of the s6.idi vehicle had sie;_1alL< that ., - 2 he was tu:r.ni _1g to the left and/or rJady _.:c c: ' overtakezi. ·__In his judgm.:nt the learned trial magi::: j;_'--:: -: ~·· clisagreed the alleged act of danz:erous driving j_s concerned-. itt is ' ' not true that appel.:..cl.n_.:; d.ro'.Ve .·to the. extreme right hence dangerously. The lea::'n-E.d trial magistrate was of th:e considered opinion that ut Ithe material time app,ell ·~nit . was drtving at a very high spe eC. which ren6.s:-e':1 hi~~ rnode of · dJ,'ivj.ng dangerous. Thlls in corivicting tne · &..b-.Pe-. __ a:..1t, t:1e magistrate first decided to, ::.mend the particulars · of the ' ~harge sheet so as to· show 'that appellant. 5ruve · at a dangerous high speed. He rationalised his move by

ax-guing ·'.,that throughout the .trial appellant was s.-r:i.re tb:13.:t there. was an allegation that he had been d.ri ving at•. a:, high speed'.,.,. And having realised this allegation appei1a:it adluce~. evidence to rebut it. Thus':-it' is the learned tr:fal ~agistrate 's 'tiew that "'.::he i:Jurpo!' ~e-:: amen1ment o! the charge di'd not pre~u1....ice the a_)p'Eillarit. With res:;-ect, I an not comfortable w:.. :;h the magistrate's reason in support of the purported am•~,.:,.lLi:::n:; of the ~harge •._ This is what he said: 11 •• .,. • • • • •- ..... lh:Ls tole arly show that the accused was ,~.rivi:.1-g at high speed as a result he f &_;_~ .;i · -~·o_ control the motor vehicle, hence t~:.:e · acc.ident. But the charge sheet die. ,-not spell ou+; the e.c.t of (sic) dange:r ~us that the ca.CC\....3 ed , ? driving at higll $,P~ei. But/it is al:' the same as the $-'•~cu . . ed from the very beginning knew arao:ig uther thi::igs tha~, speed is also 9-ll•aL_f;dCt the 1,r0.s._::cu¢ion relied upon. It is no wonder t;~,a t th~ defence case said· something aoc0ut it: In all fairness of the cus8 the charge is hereby amended to read in a high speed as a result the accu,sed . failed to contro~ the motor vehicle,..- ••••• 0 ........ . " ·rhe clai::. that amc.:1g other thL ..3s JJ:rosecution also relied on ove::speeding in proving the aJ :cc·- ::;j_on of ' , dangerous driving is not

legally :'::'econc~l3.'..):_a. This ;ourt has been persiste1..tly .pointing o,.;t; ::_:1 a number ot cases, the 3 necessity for the prosecution to a!cate in the _particulars of a.ey charge of dangerous dri-vir··::; the spec.:.'..Jic .::1.ct cons ti tu ting the alleged danger·_c ..:..s dri vinb. .Lile prime purpose of this requirement is to furnish ti.i'..L·:: accu.:.;ed wJ.th suffi~ient information oi' subs-c.ance of the oi'fence with which he is charged, hence enable him to prepare his defence, This is in compliance with the mandatory provision o:: section 293 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Qode, But from t~1e above quoted excerpt, i-~; appears that the learned trial magistrate is of the op~n~vn that it ~ij proper for the ~::,osecution to state in the ·pa:'.'ticulars o: the offence more than one specific acts ci a.:i..lcged dang~oua ~iving. Or alternatively prosecution can successfu*li prove its case by adduci:::ig evidence which establishes a1ts of aJ.leged dangerous dri vi.._:: other than the one pleaded ~n the ~harge sheet. The falsity of this view needs no el,aQoration. It is difficult to imagine how an ac::-:..:sed person would be able to grasp ~~e substance of ~he charge wh:Lijh he is facing if prosecutic"'. .-~s allowed -::o rely on more than one specific acts in or3.er to estab:..ish a sing*e count o.f dangerous driving. dhere the pro sec ..:.tion fe<i1$ that the

alleged dangerous driving may be established by mote than one offensive acts the proper courae to foliow is to Qharge the accused in alternative counts. Serious as ~t is, a Qriminal allegation cannot be proved by adopting the easy method of trial and error. Thus though seemingly appealing, th(. learned triG.l magistrate's opinion is repugnant to the principals of Criminal jus:;ice" It is clear, ti'1ough not specifically so ~Hated, that the learned tr:i.al magistrate made the alleged amendment ot the wharge on reliance of the provisions of section Z09 Q! the Qriminal Frocedure Code. Bue like all sobe:r:ly drafted statu_tes • the scope of section 209 is not without limi1;• It can onJ,y oe invoked, to amen~ a charge which is, int~r aJ.j,a, "de fee ti ve either in Gubst ance or form." In the i~tant case the learned magistr,,.te quite rightly refraJ,ned from declaring the charge in question defective, Nowhe;ce 1n his judgment, ei-~her directly or im1)liedly s 4 - did l:e i.uake a / ·.udine, c ___ -c.i:le charge v - , , . However, the magist:.._ :.. ·: : decided to amend -it onl~., ,,-:;--.; a.u.si;;; i.-'-: lacked the support of the c-ric .:~:ce on record. Contrc=;.ry to what is alleged in the >ru c,i. --1ar·:: :_:f ~:.ce offence, the_:,e is no evidence to sho·,-v J~hat ged dangerous driving ,_:. · "1f:-':i.sted u. , .. of appella.nt!:J ,M.,t; of drivi:..-~ · on the ext:2.:ine rif

1t of the 1 road hence colliding wi ~h t.1.. 1_:ront vehicle turning to a minor r 0 <;1d on t·. , . r:;_ -;11:t. V,Jj__ :, .• r. sf' .·- - 1 I totally agree with ti.cc learneu :: _ial ma:=,'-· . v.k",.; the evidence o.dduced by the prosect:. -ion side r . not support this aLLegation. But with even -~reater rL ..:.~ Jct, :'.::.'l a,::.3ndint; the charc:; so as to tal..i,J witL. t.c1e evi..]ence )ll record th: learnecf ;rial :w.e_gistrdc;e i.1.as w.erciles,sJ.;y- ovE ~st:".'e1- ~-heel. + :,_e el,lstic 1:1G3lces of section 209. -£he section was aot ms . nt •.. ! :;o cater ~: < r :=:.' 4:;c1a,.;ie;;·~ J.ike thF: ;r -, prevailinc in this cas·e" It ~- :i a _,.:;i'ec t:i V•:.. :::~hart..:: 'I anc. o ,_ _ -· . l.s8, which the si tuatio:.1. L:.. t; · ~, ca;X: :, .1 ·-iillilar -co '.:,Le ~ p.:-evailed i· . _Mbithi KJ~:2-~.-· .... ~~---J~- (19:55) 2,:-: EAOA 4QLL .-.-~ng with section 2o0 (2_1 :Jf ~-i,1c .il Iangan~,j_ks. :_·•;_·imL.1a"1 .,.::ocedure Code which empo,,·erecl . : ::...,'t t: 1 ; ':' - , 1J.d a defectiv0 information. the Court cf Ay1eal 101 _ ~:rica said~ If . . . ' ~ ,, ~ < • e In C ., act ~;his j_,'3 no:: e. Cr':lSi;;) o.f a dt.f('ct1ve 'info1°l :.on at ai:;,.. 0 ~- ., cl. :=·-,.,t was not in the in.£\ _ m:-.+:::.on, but n _j prosecution ev: 1ene; . wh::.ch coul61.0~. s 1. . . :"t the ch3..rge .. ~ ....... ~ .. · As in the above mentioned case _ . 1 this ~a~-.;; ·- . ;

chc,rge is ·:not de fee J::i ve. It is quite :i:-·rot . ;r both i:ri ::. r·ID a::1•.l substance except that it:-, :l!artic<1.;:,;,i.'ti of the offen.:-e are not suppo~ted by evidence on record~ Thers is yet; an.other irregular~_ty on the purpo:r.-t:-i:,~~ 9.mendment: :L-~; vva,3 m:1de rather too .la. ·e . Sec tio:-: 209 :,_Jerrnits cou_;:,t i,. ::,..illcmd a cilargr-i "at ;, .,/ f-c -:if the ~rial"., .3uc -_,_ 3 phrase .:ust be tcli.,;L1 t • .,8;· · ad include d.uri.-.L~ .::1e procee.~ 1-1,::i;s befo:.:·e j:-1.d_ 5-L: pronounc0d. (S_;(_; ~e_EubL.:.-: v Sa,_lehe Ruh_· -__ LRT n.83 and lVlasengula ~_HeQ 19'7'7 ~:).1:R n 32)" Ot2~·_,_.rwise th~ provision would not ::..L·- J .... ,11aci~: it . cradato.cy for the court to call upon the acc1.-__ j,;:.' . __ -',d t~ the amended char[~e 5 and give him a.n option to r0c .. ll ·the witnesses. As happened in this case, thesl; _:..i.andatory requiruments cannot be complied with whert: amend'ment is made after p:roceedings have been complett;i and date f '.Jr deli very of judgment is fixed. The practical quastion to bE:: considerc::;o.. here is whether the irregulaxities arisin1::; frorn the .fJUrported amended charge can be rectified under the provisions of section 346 of the Criminal i--rocedure Code. Nhat is curable under this provision is rr . . . . . . . . . . an;y error,· o.ri:tL1ission or irregularity in the complaint,

su.rrw:ons, warrant, charge, prociamation, c~der, . d gement ••••·••·•••• u JU what we have in this case is not an irre 6 ularity but substantive illegality. It is not a situation whereby court exercises its s ta::;u·cory er inherent power :,i.njudiciousl.Y, ~ ~- 'l'he learned trial magistrG. .:;e '-iad no power at all to amend _ the charL;;e in the manner he d.id. Any attempt- to cure this anomaly under section 346 is tG.r,i.tamount to conferrinc to the magistrate such p01.,ver whicl-:.. _the legislature did no.t find wise to give it to him. 1-~:3 wide powers nothwith- standing, I don't think it is lecitimate fc:;:, this ~ourt to do that. I accordingly hold that the .whqle exercise of amending the charge in question was illegal ..'ab .ini..... tia, hence ' not curable under section 346 of the Criminal Froce·dure Code, But even if the purported ~mendment of the charge was .fJroper, the conviction would still not b_e s_ustainable. F1rst it 1s clear that the charge .vms dupl2x. Appellant was,wharged in a single count for causing tlla ci.eath of two- persons • .l:his is not pro_per; he ought_ to have been charged 1 with two separate coun:~s. This rule is ·too elementary to be elaborated farther. occc::.1-dly it is doubtful whether the evidence on record sufficientl;:y; establishes that at the material time. appellan~ was d1'iving ac high :3peed.. _rhe 1 learned magistrate; s

finding tl1::i:t. e.ppellant was dri,ving .Jast is based on the skid marks"'~ ,~;:;: s ho·wn in · th e s kt e c h p 1 an,. l' L.,. l 6 It has been revealed that from the point where appellant staI·ted to ayJ)ly the brakes to the _!?OJ.nt of' •''impact is about 128 feet. From ::;nis, th,~ learned trial magistrate drew an inf'erence, and quite reasonably so, ·t;hat appellant was overspeeding. But with r•jsyec t, · this inference alone cannot Qe the basis oi' convictin0 the appellanc cd such serious offence. Guch inference ought to have been supplementary to another piece of evidence on this point. From what.. I .h.aye obs8rved. so far, I f~el constraint but uphold this appeal. .rience conviction is quashed and sentence together with the order of disqualificat.ion from driving is set aside, Appell2.nt is to be :i:·eleased from prison immediately unless his conti ..tlual incarceration is legally justifiable. 7/J.2/85 For the 1.:C.e_public: Mr. Kaduri, State Attorn<,,· For the Appellant: Mr. Haule,: Advocate. Qourt: Judgement delivered in open court. \t.,~Lt,,., ·' if_-~\ ·~rvJlum Judge 7/12/85