19880219 TZHC Dar es Salaam

AP?ELL\TE Jlrn.IS:CIC'.i.'F)?: . . . . /'. ,,- ; . '. or ·r~.cE DISTRIC • r· COURT O"J' -KISUTlf'-DlSTRIC/l1 1 o. • ;w ·-ru.i,L,'\. ~ <,. ♦ • t :8e:fore J.E. I-;asanci10; :r;sg:.·, . Ptjucipa.1- Resi)of1t-··J:,bgistratc .. ~ • 'e ~ • •~ c~ "• Versus ... rr,.adijc. Ally Kir:i1)aU-@ Sarah ITartin -~ilil1~'?11nnco. .. ~·~SPCND~ . . MNZAVAS J .K. 01-m unequivocal plen of {,-v_i.l t;r e:orrvicted o:f one 9o~t of 1 conspira-:zy to comnj.t an o,.f::ence c/s· 3G~. of the fenil Cot1e n.nd four counts .)f sir.1.plewJ!~_eft · 6/s 265 of the ":t.'enc'.11 Coclo an.cl sontc,1ccd to ·~ ~ 7 ,rea,rs <1 imp~isond\-1,;.: l U. •!'. on .1. · ,,11 count. ., '~ e3,c • The 101·,0.'r court on~.ered tho:t all the sentehyo.~ · run conciu-rcntly.. This. :me.ant tl~n:t tl:e accused , . . was to se1!':7'e:1, years imprisonpcnt _ortly;~: ·:·:. · · :,? :::,:-::·•·. .._·· ......... ,. ~....:~t-."_._,7·: . AgB":rieved · by J.;llo · sent~_i)oc · irilp~~:~~ ·. flw: -~;p~biic ho.s appealed to • ' • • ••• 0 this Gou:rt~. 'J'~0.E} res:ionclej1J~ ·h~ ais·o. c;r.bs~~'pp0~ied against the sentence cm tb.e ..e;roux1cl .t;:i~-;; i-~- :.I~ .~a.ni~~)f:ly e~;,ossive. ~-'. . . . . .. . .'. . '... : . , ~ ,· The Cou:rt decided. to clea;l ~.,{-;.h both· ::,ppr:,":=:i,ls .. in.consolidation. . , . IQ ,~ . .:•..,_ In his su:)r,1iss~ on ir.: ·ailppo;rt: of tl10 n.ppeil · by :th,~ -.Repu::ilic tl:at the sentence ioposca. w6.s ina<l.ec;·.1;,te J'Iro. f1Tassaba lec.,~~d Principal Sk.tc Att omoy arcued: t 1:~-~ t~w trial ma.cistrc..te c·rrod ~ sayinc; 1 that tl:o maximun. Gontoaco :::o:r th0 offences' coqr.;i tted by the ac_qused · wns seven yea:;.•s impris0l'r.1.:.,:1t: · It wascilprn~ tted.'. that on the facts I adi:1i tted by· tlie nccuse..1. -(;~10 trial court should. have f'buncl the respondent .'.:;11.ilty ol stealing by person e"f.1ploycd in tb.o puulic sorvico u/s 270 of the Penal Co('.C ,-,:1.ich offence is punis:.:ablc by a IXlJCir;:n.in cf 14 years iraprisbl'l111en-00 In 3Upport of his 8,:rgunent the Court was referred. to the deciG:i.on bj.r this Court in A13ASI IBRAITIN VR ·(1970 2 ·- LRT 65 parts III & IVo It wns also tl1c hlcrno-:l Principa,l State Attorney's su1Jwission that if tho lc2.rnod Prinoipc::,l Resident lfJagis tra to thoUc:,·h t :that he 1ln,d no power to sentence the accused to a more severe sentence he sl!ould have cor:1mi ttecl t.L0 respondent to the Tii&,-h Court for sentence u/s 171 tho Crioinal Procedure Act. Arguing his second. ground of appeC1.l tlJe learned Pri1'.:cipal (· .. State Attorney submi"tte(l t:.lo.t c1ecisior.sof' this court and the Court of Appeal as we11··2,s decisions in other jurisdictions say th~t offences committed in tho same transc1ction should be punished with ·concurrent sentences unless there arc special circ1.111stances to the contra:cy o I-Ii was argued that there· is no decision that ho.s clefinecl what are exceptional circumstances but tho.tin the case of GEORGE BL.ACK- CR. APPL. REPORTS VOL. 45 1961 page 292 it was held tha,t "whether tlw sentences shall be concurrent - or consecutive is a natter for the Judge to deteTI1ine in t~~e exercise of his discretion" o In that case the sent<mces in sor:ie of the counts were made to run consecutivclyo that It was arguedLtb.e offences ~nvolvecl that is 7 • stea~ing- over .- thirty million shillir.tf:s in foreign currency and. the D2lfucr tb.e offences ' were com.ni tted qunli:fiGc.1. to be oxceptional circumstn.11ces callin.g for a departure from the rule of practice tb.o;i:; offences comoi tte6. in the same traneiaction sJ..:,.ould. · be punisl:od with concurrent_ se1rcenccs o It was argued tlmt ,t]16 sentences imposed by tl:e tri.al COUl't sllov.ld. have been ordered to run consecutively~ acc"'J.sed. previous··good rcoorc1 notwi thste.ndingo Ai ternn,tively I'flro Hassaba I.U'gl.l.od t~iat tho offGr!COS were not coomi tted in ·i;he same tr2JJ.saction. It w<1s sulJi:!i tted tli.2,t they were committed on C.iffcrent dates ai1d in,.rolved different 01nou;.1ts of money o..nd tii~~!';fore 9 it w2.,s C1.rgu.ed 9 tho sentences ir:iposec1 sh01..1.ld. ha.ve been rn:1.de to run consccutiv0lyo The court WG.S cs~cd to alter the decision of tho lm-,or cov:;~t and order that the. conov.xrent sentences run con~.ecutively. In rebutt:::.l Dro Lc:,nw3,i 9 learned counsel for the ·respondent argued the t this was a si t1-,z, tion where 11 tho · buyer has paid for t:::i.o tune a..""ld when the music cor:i.es· hG says ho does not like the music 11 o .It was submitted that tb.c Repu~_,lic h2-ving decided to charge thr1 respondent with simpl8 t:.1cft c/s 2(5 it is es·ttopecl from 2.Ski11£ tho court to convict tlle respondent under section 270 of the Penal Code simply bebaus~ section 270 provides a nore severe sentence than section 2C5i ·· 3 It wo.,s the lec.rnecl counsel 1 s subI!lission t:-::..-:.t -th0 rleci:-\iO,'l in ABASI IBRiGH,I wn.s obi tG_r wd th2,t it goos counter to other decisions of this very court - Those decisions were quotted. as FRANCIS VR 19G7 (IICD) 224 and JOSEPTI VR (126C) IICD 4040 It· wn,s n.reued that tb.c court should be gu2.rclBd by tho 1rt,j0ri ty decision of this courto 'l'b.e court was 2-Skocl to ::liagss tho .oooornl ground of :1ppen.l by tl1e Repul.Jlic that the c.ccused shoulcl k.ve been convi.ctecl u/s 270 of the Penal Cod.ea As for the .:irgui;1ent by "G~'lG Republic that tl10 senJ.;ences inposed sb.oulcl hnve boen ordered to run consecutively I'f1r. k..rawai countered thc.,t t~1e a,coepted. rule of prn.ctica of this courJ.; Md. t:10 (Jourt of Appe&l is ths.t offenoos co1:m1i tt0d in -the SQ.E,e tro.nsection should b~ ptmished. with concurrent ·sentences. To fortif_y J.,is argument tl10 court was. referred to t~1e decision .if1 RV SuvJEDI TitOKLSA (1946) Vol. 13 EACA 179., · It wn,s also n.r{;Ued thd section 1CC(2) of tb.G C.P •.A., Gives tho court absolute discretion whether to or-J.er co!:lcurront or consecutive sentences. It wan a.reued thG. t the section is not r:1a..v1clc:tory n.nd tll2.t it bcii.'18 [:, penal stG.tute it shoulcl ~Jc strictly interpeteclo It was submttoc1 i/·,r:d; tl1e loci.med. Princip:::~l Resident Maeistresto lla.d unf'ettered discretion -;;o decide whether tlie sent011ccs shoul,l run concurrently or co:1secutively Q It wa.s ft:rtL.or 8.rgued tho.t the discrGtion ~der sec·cion l(G(2) w2.s absolatoa • As for the two Ene;-lish C3.SGS quottGd by ·i:;he Republic it W2,G n.rgued that they are docisions of another ju:risdiction and th2;t; they do not bind this .001.;.rt. It was also subni ttecl t!1a.t the chn,rge in tlle two cases was es:pioniJ6e which 9 it was su1x:iitted~ was• a much more serious offence tb.a.n sir:iple theft in the present ca.seo The learned counsel for tho res.pono.ent quotted press repo:t'ts by tlle Ministry of Justice roearding the sentence imposed in this o.::,so and :.)..r13Ued th:.1t "-we ,;-rill be fa,cing a very bad precedent if tho 001.rr-ts . . . in tllis country should 1JG influericect by political considern;'Gioris 11 -· to . In support of leis argu::1cnt tho Court was reforroc.l_Ltlle decision reported in ( 1853) Volo. 4 II01.t3e o-? Lands pace 1. This ca.so wc..s apparcntlJ, quotted n.nd followed by this court in SUBZAL GAR/\GE V JJUILDING TI:.JL1)WA:-lE and ELECTRICAL SUPPLY CO~ L~D(i97G) LaR.Ta40o It was submitted th2-i.: tLerc is no. diffor(;mce between n. theft of 1 I'anzclflicll'l shilling o.nc1 ,:. th.0ft of forcif.?1 currency., The lee.mod counsel. ·suboitted thc.,t even if the. court n.coepts· the argunent. thc.t O O • o / '" L~ there were exceptional ci:rcumstanoos calling for an order that the sentences run consecutively the Cou:rt~ it wn.s argued 9 was no·c in position to assess the nature of.tho exceptional circumstanct3s in the full as there was no fuil hearinc of' the caseo As for the argt,1111ent that the offences were not COElEli ttecl. in the sa,rne transaction the iearned counsel su;J!iri tted that tl1e facts showed that the offences were comm:i. ttod in t;.1e saEJ.e transaction. It :was finally argued tb.at tl1e learned Principal Resident 1•1agistrate could not com.mi t the accused to tl1e lligh Court for sentences under section 171 because the section talked of~ district. m,_,gistrate and not a resident magis·trateo The Court was invited to dismiss the appeal by the Repu°'.)lic. · Arguing· against the sentence imposed by t)1e trial court Dro Lar:rwai submitted that the learnecl Principal 'Resident :Magistrate misdire·cted. himself when he held that the offences called for a severe sentence;, It was submitted that on the facts as narrated in tho lower coti:rt the .respondent ~a.ined nothing apart from an air ticket to Londono--· This fact, it was argued should have qualified her for leniencyo It was argued that first offenders shou.la. not be 3iven custodial sentenceso It was also argued that :responclent's plea of guilty. qualified her to be treated with leniency o · It_ was also argued that the lee,rned Principal Resident Magistrate erred in ordering t::e the respondent to-refund the amount stolen imnediatelyo The Court was asked to consider the mitigating factors and reduce tlle sentence imposed l)y the lower court acc<:Jrdingly o. In reply the learned Principal Stnte Attorney argued that sec-ti.on 265 of the Penal Code is the sc::une as section 270 of the Penal C0de in so far as the offence" of tt.eft is concerned and tl1at the only difference is regarding sentenceo The Republic argued that even if the court was to find that tl:..e. offences were comrni tted in t;:le same transaction there were exce1Yi.iional ci;rcumsta..YJ.ces calling for oonsec-.: ..~-~-,re sentenceso It was arguecl that the facts leading to the commission of the offences were fully stated by the Republic and that the respondent admitted themo It was argued that s~ealing foreign currency is a very serious offence especially in developing countries and that eooo/5. 5 such offences could lGad to economic stranG"U;la:tion. The _learned state attorney conceded that the· policy regard.in& sentence is now geared towards reformation but that there.arc exceptions to such policy like this one 9 w.'.rich~ it wcs submitted, called for a doterent sentence. fill for the queshon of compens3,tion the learned Principal S-catG State Attomoy argu.ecl that ·t;he lower court w2,9 right in orclerinc; the respondent to pay t:1e ar,101.mt stolen to the government immediatelyo Section 7 of the Minimuril Sentences Act wns quotted in support of this argumento As I ~ave already mentioneu above the respondent 1,as convicted o:f:' one count of conspiracy to oommi t and offence and four counts of stealii1g c/s 384- and 265 of the Penal Code and sentenced to 7 years imprisonment on each cow.1."cc The sentences were made to run concurrently, and hence the responder:d; is now servinc 7 years iraprisonmento The question this Co1.,:.rt is ruq_uired to decide is whether the sentence of 7 years imprisolliilent is rna.,."lifestly inade~·mte as argued 1)y the Republic or whether' t~ie sentence was. manifestly excessive as to warrant reduction by -~his Court as ar,<s"V.ed by tl,.e learned co1.ll'lsel for the respondent. I will first start with the argument by the Republic that on the facts the learned Principal Resident i:iagistrate should have convicted the respondent of stoalin0 by a public servant c/s 270 of the Penal Code,. It was the learned state attorney's submission that theft under section 265 is the same as theft under section 270~ Prima ;facio when we talk ·o:f theft and no more the argument by the Republic could_ be sustainedo Bq:i; there are •different types of the:ft which types are 1 under ::iur law 9 punishable with different sentences., - Simple theft c/s 265 of the Penal Code under ,thich the respondent was. charged attracts a T:1:'l.:X:imum penality of seven yoars imprisonmento Stealing by public servant· c/s 270 is punishable with a ma.Y..imum of 14 years imprisonmento So is stealine c~ttle c/s 26Co Stealing goods in transit c/s 269 has a mo.."Cimi..lm sentence of 10 years imprisonrrion·t ~ so is stealinc by clerks ;;.:nd servants o/s 271 of ·the Penal Code. From these few examples the. learned Principal State Attn-ney will no doubt 2.gree with me on reflection that stealing under section- 265 of the Penal ·Code which is sometiE1es referred to as simple theft cannot be equated with stealing. u/s 270 which carries a penali ty ·of 14 years imprisonrn:mt:; twice the sentence imposed .,in cases of simple theft c/s 2650 Nor can stealinc cattle c/s 269 of the Penal Code be ·the same as steal;i.nc; c/s 265 of the Penal Code a much less serious offenceo It is settled la~r that an accused person can only be c.onvicted of e, ~•-5 .f::erent offonc0 fro □ the one he wa.s chare;ed with if -£he offonce is Dinor and COB'-Qa:t.o to the one he was initially chare-ed vri tho The C.P.Ao is very clear on this point. It cannot be said in tl:e present case th2~t tho offence of stealing by p-..;i.l)lic servant c/s 270 of the Penal Code is ninor aacl oo..t;.nat& t~ stealing c/s 265 of_ the Penal Codeo I have road the decision in ADASI ITu'WIIM ,qu.ottecl by ihe learne_d Principal State Attorney. T11e decision vms 9 as rightly argued l)y the learned co1,mscl for the :r-espondent o.bi ter., T:b.ere are appc1rently many other de9isions of tl1e opposi tc viewo In my unde:rstandine of the law the respondent could not in this case be convicted of a much more scirious o:ffence of which he was not charged wi tho The Repul)lic knew ·c::.at i;he accused was a public servant and had stolen pubiic funds before framing the charges4 That the Republ_ic chozo ·i:;o cl:arge the respondent with simple theft is, "" the least . beyond l,1J" comprehens iono to say I tend to agree with 9 Dr., Lamwai ~s argui11ent ·chat the learned P::-incipal Resident· i\'.la,zistr2.t:o could not have convic"i:;oj the r-espondent of the serious o-ffence u/s· 270 of the Penal Corle a;n offence she he.d. not been charcecl with - tho facts divulged notwj_thstandin8o Comin& fo. the y_-ucstion .whether the learned trial l:k'18'istrate. should have ordered the sentences ·'.;o run consecutively tllis Co1..12t has :,:•irst to. decide whether the five offences committed 1)y tl-;.e respondent 1-mrc district and s0parat9 or whether the offences were committed at tho same time and in the sa::1c transaction., The facts l).arratGd in fae lower ccui t araply doraonstrn.ted t>.at 0 the respond8nt and her t1v0 co-wo!ke1•.3 in t!.le National B--:i.nk of Co1::1:i1ercc~ ForeiE;11 brW-ch 1 conspired ·:;o steal foreign currency fron· their cwployero The~tr theft of ·:;he foreign currency on different_ days :fas clearly part a.'ld. p.:.rcol of their conspiracy to steal tl1e money., It was the same transaction effected on different days oonvcnient to thema I agree with the le:::..-rr.:ed counsel for the respondent that -c2e offences were committed in the sar;ie transaction., ., 0 ./7 -- 7 It is settJ.ocl lc;w -~hci,t offence cor:1r.1i tted in tho s2JJ0 transaction should ~:-o. vir::;i ted with concurrcmi; sentences unless tl1ero aro exceptional circu~stD.i1ces c2,liinc for consoci..1tivo sentenceso That· this is tlle h:,w is evident fror:1 decision of this,_co1.1-1·t in CIIIKONDi~.I'lU C~U:TGJJ:TGA V?.. (19(7) ~~oC.D.403 and ili~V:CJ~1}:1i:i:foTO TOTHJJ~•I1! · l~Ll;GISTO VE (19CG) IICD 154 :to cr...i.otte 1JV.t a few o:f -~l::.G cases on tho qv.estion of co:;,1cv_rxcmt sentences., -Tho final y_'U.es'bion -i;~1is Court hn.s to decide ,is whether in -this case there were exceptiono.l circur:JStr::..."lccs that warra.11.ted the -depart frou th0 rule ol' practice n.ncl award consoc1'.-cive sentonces as arc;-ucd by tho l_earnccl Princi-pal State ..:lttornoyo iIB I hnvo alre2-dy r::iontionod ahovo it was arC,'1.Wd by tho Re·;)u:~lic that steG..lin5 of. foroi:~1 currGncy should_ Le tdmn by .the courts ·i;o be 2, ver-J seriov.s offonco 2,s it interferes with -;;he oconooy of ·cL..:; countr.:r. The len.rnecl co·,,;,:..1s ol for thco responc.lcmt wa,s on tho otl1Gr hand of tho view thc.t ttore was nothinc pc:1.rticul:1rly scriov.s in s"l;oali:ng foreign curr-01:.c-y oncl th8,t tl1oro was no c1iff'crcncc betwoon stoc1linc .a Tanzanie.n st.illinc ancl ste2-lin0 forei:':,11 nonoyo Lo 6 all;y I tend to aeroo with t>.o lu2orn0cl counso1 thc.t in ~)ot.b. cases tho o:i:'fenco o:f th0ft hc,.s be:0:1 com1i ttod - fut t,s tl:o loo.r:.--ied counsel will no doubt. n,greo with uo on rofloction: t10 ocono;:1ic loss caused in a country by c., thief -~}1::c-t stoals over thirty Dillion shilline;s in foreign currency' is rn..10~: ;_.10:ro cbllosal tb.o;i:; ·cho ecohoE1ic loss ccx1.,socl by a tl:ief who steals thu s::100 nr.101,mt in Tanzania shillinc;s., It is tl:o econ~mic ioss that a c_ountry suffers w:1en the li ttlo foreign cur_roncy it h2.s r.1ano.,6 od to save Lmder very -hard conditions is stolon t>.:;t r.1.3,L,:os tllu ·o:f:fo:.100 of steo.linc foreiCJ.1 currency 1111 the D<Jro horrible and atrocious O This is what tl1e· 100,rnod Principal St2:~o .l:.:i:;tornoy h:;.,cl in r:iind when ho areu,ccl tlfot tho le,:::unud Principc..l :J.osiclent I'.fac~istr2,te orrocl in ordorin,:-:; fo.G sonto,1cos to ru,.vi c,Jnov.rrcntly ben,rinc in oincl tllc collosal aDount of forei::::;n currency cd;~)lm:1. Dro Lamwai will, I boliave 9 v_sreo with r:10 that stoalinG fro:,1 Government Parasta:cals i•t1 alar11.int;ly tr:1 the incroG,So - 'J'his iEl especially so nowadays in connection with tl·~e H2,tional Be...nk of Comr:1erce in which the responc.lent was er:iployeclo People 21,re appGarin::; in courts with r:ionotonoU:,f rcgulari ty for dipping their hands in tho kitty; and people, ordi112,ry poop le 9 are perplexed and askincs themsolvos . as to what is happoningo '.L1JJ.ese _facts apparently eh.,_deo. the trial i:1agistrate 1 s mind when hc·vti¢S dccidine- whether or not to impose -. . consecutive sentenceso I 'i:l·o not agree with Dra Lanwai 1 s argument - that the trial magis·frate had unfetterGd discretion to order that the sente~9es run concu:rrently o Section 168(2) of the CoP.A. gives the cou:rt pow01~ to order sentences imposed.at one trial on two or □ore offences to run consecutively unl~sfr tho court otherwise directs that they -run concurrentlyo ThrouJ'h pr2.ctice courts have pronounced that offences coITu.ai tted in the: S&"JO transaction n.re usually punished with concurrent sentences unless there arc exceptional circurnstanceso The facts narrafod by tho prosecution clearly showec'~ that tho respondent with allegedly two of :1is co-workers committed the offence with deli.beration and. calculc:d;ion., .. The nation was shaken when tho press reported the t;io:["t of such a large ar:101.mt o:f r:ioney in foreir:n currency., The Court docs not operate in vacurnn;it is pm-tend .pn,rcel of the societyo As it was once re::m,rked by Oliver Wendell IIolves "Law must be a lhrinc orea.nism drawine- its life y power and vitality - fro □ the ·l;ompb 211d mood of tho society11 e i . In the present. c2.Se" the court cannot close its eyes to tl-lo :fact that stealing from bai.1J.r,.s has becone the order ,>f tho clay - Theft · from banks is y as I L.o.d already mentioned above 1 all tlle more atrocious when it involves collosal amounts of foreiQl cu::crency as it was in this caseo Such acts as the accv.sed.did should not only be !)Ondemned by the ·_ Courts but should also bo held in utfor abhorrence by all law-abiding citizens of this country o Dro · Lamwai has with a lot of ingcmui ty argu:eq the technicali'ties of the law .but if I may mention in pas?j_ng this- is ·a court of justice not an ace.derriy of ~,aw., -~~- . oooo/9 9 The decision oi' thi.s Court .quottoci abovo 2,nd the decisions in En5land referred. to tlla· Com·t by the lcarnecl Principc,1 State Atto:r·:·_.)y are Hd. j.~fG t:t.at Hhct::..wr tie sentences sh;:i,ll 1Ju · concurrent in soDc circunste.nces or consemJ.tivc is a ma,tter for the court to determinGo In the pecu.lJ.~r and exceptional ciroumstunces in this case I agree with the Republic;· argument that the learned PrinciJ)al Resicfont :Mae;istratc erred. in ordering tho sentences to run concurrently, the :respondent ?s :unbl01:1ished record not wi thst;),l:.c1i;1z,, Admi tedly the responde;1"c is a first offender but hio first ofi'once happens to be a very seri_ous oneo I do not agree with Dro Lnr.rwai 1 s argu1i1ent that this· is tl'.0 type of offence calline- for a non-custoL':.ial sentenceo The cros 9 -a1)peal accordin&iy fails!., I-agree with tho Republic tl:lat this is one of those offences calling for a deterrent sentence. As it was bold 1:J:7 tllc n~urt of Appeal in REGilf;). V :3RI1.fi1EH (190) IWLR at page 157 serious offences like this one l,.ave · to be visited. with punislmont intended to be puni tive 9 designed and. ca1culatecl to detGJ:' others and mear!t to be a. safegaurd to this cot.mt:ry,, T1.1e concurrent sentonces passed by the 10 ,"lled Principal Resident Magistrate arc ·acoorchngly hereby set d,Sidc ~d in substitution therefore t;:c..J responrlent 9 Sa:r2J1 Simbau.langa @ IIacJ.ija Kim~)a.u 9 is sentenced to 7 ;years. imprisom1ent on each of tl:.o five comrtso The sentences in the four counts of stea.line (i.0 00 counts 2 to 5 inclusive) to run consecutive1y but in view of her proviou.s unbler:iishcd recon:l and ·i;lK fact that she readily pleaded guilty to tl1c offences the cumulative sentences in the four offences of theft to run concurrently wit~:. tho 7 ye.:1rs sentence• in count oneo This moan:; that the respondent .will serve 20 years iµ1priso:nm(mto The order that ·che respondent refunds the raone3, immediately. stando Right of appeal to Cou:rt of Appeal Explainedo Dar os Salao.m 19/2/88 Ivlassn.ba for the Rep/Appoll,mto Di-a Lamwai for tho respo:.1dentu