19811114 TZCA Dar es Salaam

V I' IN 'I'HE COUR'.l' OF APP~AL OF' 1'ANZANIA At£ . DAR ES SALAAM (CORAM: Nyalali, C.J., Mustafa, J.A. af12 Makame, J.A. ) i ~ CIVIL APPEAL NO. 20 OF 1981 I ; ( B E .T ·w E E N · REV. SIMON ELIYA. CHIWAN.GA • G O O 0 .. o O O •

A N D REV •.. SEVERINO ANDREA SUPA . . • 0 • o ;a o • a . . RESPONDENT (Appeal from the Judgment of the High Court of Tanz~n~a at.Dodoma) (Lugakingira, J.)' dated the 29th day_ of May, 11981, i. in I ~·~ ':;,;• / (:: /"· 'I ',': .. ~- ' ,,.. f , Miscellaneous Civil Cause No. 6 of~ .. JUDGMENT OF> THE COURT NYALALI, CoJ.: . The J:<e\'.'• Severino Andrea Supa, hereinafter. caped the . 'i~ . :·. { . I . t .• ·.-. ' respondent, filed a petition in the .High Court at D~dorna seeking to nullify the ParliamentaJ:-y 'Election results for Dodoma Urban Constituency in respect of which he was one of the two c<;1ndidates. The 9ther candidate was the Rev. Simon ~liya Chi~anga, hereiflafter called the appellant. ,- I; r ,,; .~- 1 The petition con 1tained thirteen main grounds alleg1ng . ':/~ -<l' ' va1;ious electoral malpr,acUces~ The I High Court found si-x malp~actices established by. the evidence, that is, the reqistr'a ~ion . ; I . 'and voting by minors - contr,ary to section ,13 of the ~lc:ctiorsAct; , • I the unauthorised election. campq.igning by supporters of the appel l -.:11; ·r..: contrary to secti,;m 66 (1) (b) of the Elections Act; th~ displayin J of ~l~ction symbols in the vicinity of a pqlling station 1. • ••••• /2 .. , : ,. 1: ' ·/ 'i. .J ' I. -:-, 2 ,_ 1i ' i . , I 11" • contrary to section 11~.(1) of the E12ctions Act; the unatlthoris0d 1 voting by th~ presiding ,~ff!cer 1n

tehalf of voters - c~ntrory . ./1 ,1 to section- 76(d) of the Elections /\ct; the failure to allocate I! i 1 voters to specific polling stat1dn~ ,.. contrary to section 17(1) 1 . of the Slections /-\ct and th!e givfng:/ of hoes by the appella~t as I 1/ I : I . a bribe to influence the voters •./ 'rpe High Court found thre1: · Ii .of f:he malpractices ·did not affe~t . . . . /I /'the results oi; the election 1 . . • .· .. wi~in the meaning of the provision:s of section 123(3)(c) of the :, 'I /; r . · _, - :1 Act. In so far as the unautho.d.sed election campaianina by the · rl appellant s supporters is concer/ned, .the High Court found that· 1 I :/ . it amounted to an illegal practilice but there was no eviden~e • , ' 1·I/ l 1 I : , • . • to· show that "the majority of vdtets were •. or may h,.we been, . . ·_1 •I ·• ·'11 · '!! '' ;1 . .prevented from electing the candidate whom they preferred" , ,J ·'/ /f!. within ·the meaning of the provisions of sectior. ·123(3) (a) of the . I I I [I Act. With regard to 'the d:1··spla.J1· J n/g'i of elocti~n .-,ymbols vfithin' . .. : I· the vicinity of ~olling s_tat1onr . I; the appel lart, the High Cci11 Ct · ll found that this amounted to an i1.116gal practice by the appellani_ . .· . I! :i .. . whic};l has the effect of avo:.ding t;he election as provided for I! I· i. . ' under section 123(3) (d) of the ~,c-u;. I 1-··' I 1 . I Ii i ' 0 As to

the giving of ;:hoes by !/the appellant, the High Court foun'd that it amoµnted to a cort_ uJt prr:icticc by. the appellan-t; ' . I II 1 which also has the effect of a /oi1ing th~ c.:;,h}ction as prov.ii-led :for:. 1 :1 /: ·under section 123(3).(d) of ,the :1Act. I 11 [I ! / I/ on .the basis of these findings concerning illegcl and_ . . . . :1 I corrupt practices by the appel/anf, thG High Court al ll1wed the· . pe ti.tion i an d nu lli fed Ii . 1 for Do d oma Urban Cc,ost it ueni:y" tl1e e 1 eGtibn Ii1· Ii: The appellant was aggriev,e,· d by II tht~ ,, decision of the Hi9l1 Court i' I i: ,1 and hence this appeal. ,I 1. I ! ' ••••••• I 3 I.• ,· r:.• .. -: .. /I , ,I . 1 rt/}\P, ;/: :I Ii 1 k;·.'. ,i_. ,. . • ,·· :-t· : 1·/ l- ·. . .: I - ~ 1~ ,I i/ . I I In his memorandum of appeal//, t\he pppellant challenges the !f . /.,· ' ./ . . I . .Q findin_gs of fact and lnw of th~ I-1 ti.ghl Court on the Dasis of which . 1 r ( ' I' I:l i l . :_, I • • : the H~gh Court nullified th~ electiqn in question. The appellant \iir ·I i ··?i. was represented by M/S M. A• Lakha ·and Do Co Mbezi, learned · IJ . r •. I i/ · . advocates; whereas the respondent w?s represented by G. C. Alimwik9, Zsq. >J '.j .~ learned advocate. ..1, . l. . .; From the proceedings tin the High Court and in this Court, .t ~:. ·' . . ·,~l . . . · · .. : ii I · · there is a wide area of agreement by the parties on the

following f . :.i, . . !/ I . 'j primary facts that are relevant i:o ~his appeal:· thqt there was . a Parliamentary . election in Dodtm~ Urban Constituency on the ~ 'l 26th October, 1980; that the app[lll nt was declared by the.· /1· II Returning Officer. elected with 3/~,'.l[1b7 votes againr,t the respond~nt's :I /1. 25,339 votes - with 914 votes sp~i~ed; that prior to the election day the constituency- had been dk\Jded into pollir.g districts . • ~ /i . .: 'I l · which included Nghonghona ~rimarly School an(1 Homb0lo Makulu Galp y:1 i . l . Ii . KiJ'iJ'i,· th,.. .: the offi.cial campaic.1ii,g started on ', .e · 1st October,. ; .. ' . ]~ 1 . . 1980, .an_d_ enaed on 25th obtoben 1 ~980; that on tne election ·ctay . ·/ I .· that is, the 26th' October, 1980,; o~e Joseph Sehaba ·(DoW.26), , . . :/ I . accompanied by a group of ~outhl, visited on~ pf the polling stat~ut~i. •• I that on the same day the appellant travelled in a motor veh:i.cle pnd visited a number of polling stalio.ns including Hombolo _Makulu · · · . ··. II 1 ✓- • ·shuleni polling station and th~t the motor vehicle displayed . : II !,I . . • the appellant's p110tograph and explranc1tory· notes about the .. (. .•\,; •r .' ~. • t • ', th ••< appe·llant as a can.didate in the elbctiori. . .,, '. ''. '• Also, from the proceeding.k. J_/n ·the High Court. and !..n this I .. , I . . . ~ . . . !1 Court the following

m_atters wlu c/ h /a-~e relevant to ~his c ppeal 1 I .• ,.I are in dispute: It is the respon/·ent' s cas,J that the ap(lellant .... r ·.: . 1 aying t d ill ega 11 y 1 n. d isp ·ace . . hi.~s1p1otogr~ph ./ I ~nd explanatory. I f i. ·notes· on the motor vohicl,! 1r1hilc yisi ting pollinri st,1 tiop; on the I i1 J ·:. } ! I, I '1 II ,.I 4 1-" f I /: -e,iectic;>n day. /\ i: , Further!l\..ore, the reisp~ndent asserts_ t h at on- t he I . r Ir ev.e of the election day,, that is, th . 7 25th October, 1 9 80, the I /i _appellant deli:vered four boxes of ihqes at. a village shop in I /: I . Nghonghona Village with t~e V~€W ~f influencing voters t o I I . II !f I, elect ·him. The appellant, on the/ o\per hand, claims that h~ . . I acted in good-_fai th in dis~lc;iying / hi/s photo~raph and cxpl 9 na tory ~ ot,as, and that, in any case, hisl cot1duct neither amounts · t9 1 an illegal practice within the ml:!ani'ng of the Elections Act, 1970, I ,I I/ I I nor constitutes any offence· under,! section 119 ( 1 ) of the same 11 . ,! I I/ .! ,I Act. The ·appellant .denies visitilng /or/and delivering any hoes . , '/ I . . ·at )'Jg h:, onghona Vi llage shop as al]e9/ct / J)Y the · ri-:: ~pendent. 1 Tht:!. f~rst point for .considcLa-pon and decision in this cas(;;? I is whether the displaying of the appellant's photograph on the :~ I motor vehicle contravened the provi~ions of section 119(1) of '

'I:[. . . I . I . the £1ections ·/\ct, which st~tes : I :/ 7 I I "No pei;son shall, wi t.1,iri: any b~ilding . hen~ voting in a~ election is.in pr~gress, 6r at an~ place within the rad1us of tw,o hundred meters of any such building, wear or dispiay ,my. card, f:ymbol, f,wour or other emblem indi~a~ing support for a particular .1 . candidate ·in the election.". ; 1; . I I I· Mro Lakha submits in effeclt that the appellant• s photograph II i; I did not amount to. a- symbol or an(tm/?ng the display of which. -Ii . j is prohibite~ un~er the provisi~nslof section 119(1)f ·We.do l ' : /' pot agree. We are of the view the appellant• s photograph tha/~_- I . as displayed on the motor ~ehicfe ~mou11ted to a. symhoJ. or emblem 1 .\" . "indicatin9 • support 'for the app~ll/~nt in the election". There was . . I; /1 f: evidence that the motor vehiclei: stppped about 45 pac1.~s frorn the •·. ' .. Hombo~o Makulu Gala ya Kijiji p61J/ing I ,I station. This is clearly . . II I' 1/ within the r_adius of 200 meters// cd:vered by the prohibition . /! /, against,.-di splay of. ell:!ction sym/)ols or emhlcms in the11 1, I• i: I I' I I vicinity of polling stations. rhere was of course no evijence 111 ,. ~ •• w / 5 .I I/ i I ·_ill I 1

I I I f," 5 l I · to i ndic.::te· t h e d~s-~ance · a~ ·; . wh1fh 1 l m9 t or ve hicle stopp~d r.he at. the o..:her polling sta.tions .. ··• Ho,waver, in so -ar as 1-lombolo ·Makulu ~~la ya Kijiji+ is :concernt.:b, thGre was a clear violation :I ., I by· the_ appellant of the provisions1 of sGction 119(1) of the Act" . ·, . I : . I But does this violat:ton ~ount to!an illegal practice within the meaning of the Electi6ns Ac' , i/197U? . ! . , I Mr. L~kha submits·;that :itilctoes not. He contend_s,. in • .I :/ •· Ii effect, that ,the terminol~gy 11 jjll~gal practice" is used expr.essly ., in the Elections Act to ~escr:il/b·e j specific o~fences under the ·-1 ; .. ' i i . . . . . . ,I ' Act and for that reason the t~rrninology cannot be extended .l 1 jj 1 to c_qver any other contraventiJns I of the provisions of the. - · Ii ,: . Elections Acto He cites Halsb1ry1r s Sta t'-;ltes of England 1 • /1 I ! • Ii I Second Edition, Volume 8 - pag1. 798 and Halsbu::y' s Laws of . E,ngland, Th:i,.rd Edition, V.olumeYi4:- page 164, ·where the II I j ., Representation of-' the People ·;Jt,/ 1949, contains provisions .. I I' co~cern~ .-:c;,1 "illega_l pr actices ,·. 1 v.'.f ch are simiL .. to the 'I 11 provisions in our E1ec·tions Aclt. 1/ In England it se2ms, es_ pe~ial_J y .I . . . I i ·{ pn uillegal practices" contained 1 f. on the authority o.f, the no~es 1 in Hal~bury's Statutes of EngllnJ,

Second Edition,_Volume 8 ~ . page 708_ - that the termfoolo+ ,'lnlegal practice" is confined to specific offence~ so descrjoed under the Representat~on· . .. I/ ,I f; .. ·of the People Act, 1949: We /rri of the considered opinion t!>s; . the Ei:1glish approach is .the correct one on this point. In oth~r . :>:·, 'c} . ·1 ·. ii. ·.1 _. : •• ~ ~ ' ' J wprds, not every off~nc~ or contravention of the i:-rovis_ions · . i/ . I · of the Elections Act, 1970, aJou~ts to an "iilegal practice"~ i. / • i ' ii ! The expression "illegal practice:/" must be confined t') the . . I : specific. off~nces or con_trave1f ti:rns expri;;ssly so ~esc:ribed. We are fortified in this · ·construction .I ·I by the fact that ar.i. , I i! ''illegal practice" so cie.scribed under the Elect;i.ons l\ct, 1970 > .. ;:• :_r,;.-.:·. . ~- • .', cl:l)j •<.,/,:_:;',•;\' I I" ,' • . i • ·,.~:- ··y::\ __;·· ,· I i ;:·. 6 -11 . ~,I.' ·., . Ii ;1 . +r • . . carries special consequences which do not actach .to other offences . or contraventions under th~ Electi~ns 1ct. ... . ·1I I 'I :1 ~n our view, ci1e appellant's offence under bsechon 1J9(L of the Elections Act is a miscondu_c,t within the mea_nj,ng J'f,-./~ection 12,3(1)(a) of th.e Ac_t I /i . · . · and cannot avoid an eleC:tion unles~ i'jh is prov~d to the satisfactfon :-•r• !j I , of the· court that •~the majority of voters were, or may haV<:; been, I:• ·,. : . . ,

·! :! . I I ; . : prevented from electing the candidat/ e /whom they preferred 11 • There I i /. . .,\ is ·no evidence to . show that such · · wa~ Ii the case.· 1! 'l'he election cannot, I . I' i th~refore' be nullified "on thq bat=,;ilb ~f the appellant Is contraveri i:ion l : . i' i of· the provisions, of section 119(1Y o) the Act. . ~ ' j I I The second point for consider! tion and decision in this appec:l I i: r · · 1s whether the appellant delivered -//an{ hoes in Ng!,onghona Village 11 ,, ! t: l .. - . : 'I I ... I for· the purpose of influencing vote:rs / to e~ect hin. The learned I f I 1] J ' f i I I i I trial j"uc:lge .reviewed the evidence this point i:'lld was rig~tly 71 I ,., 1·' i t, of the vie...., that the matter depend~d £:1 the credibility of I /!. 11 I I .. iI witnesses. He found P aW 0·17, nam..:ly, i):van Chi shorn,· who claims 1 i i· I' I I l ; I! f , . .I ·to be an eye,witness to the events~ b;:> be a trutl:ful witness. i J' • I ,,/1 ·1 . :1 ! ) He rejected the evidence adduced by the appelLrnt' s witnes·ses i: ; r,! . .on this point. By accepting .th_e cf id~ncc of P.W. 17, the .laarned . 1 j th' ' I: lj . ' t rl.9 . udge found that e appellart :relive~ed four boxes of hoes .,. !,,1 :. . in Nghonghona,. Village on the .eve or -re election day for the :I I " I !! I purpose of influencing voters to elec:-t the appellant. Mr. Lakha, il· /1 r1 a~ta ~ke d this

finding of the· learn21. 1 1 /,·. 'I . ' ·:, trial judge. The attack_moVed on mai~ fronts; firstly, that .the learned trial judge should not h~ve found P.W.17 a truthful 1 · witness as the story told by him oj6o~t the events involvtng the . . . I I . appellant at Nghon~hona Village . 1J i~probable; and, sec0ndly, •II !I . I : that the learne<;l- trial jHdge shourk.t 11av8 been more car1::fu l in './ ! I · .~ccepting the testimony of a singl)c• ~i-~ness and should not have I i: I I d . ... . ./ . , : . I •: I ••; ! • •, ' ' ..... ' 7 I I- i , -~ I· .!I . treat1::d P. Wo 17' s conduct and the /c;oriduct of tha oth2r persons 1' . ,I 1'i . subsequent to the election as co1,1ro~orating the testimony of. , I . .. i ; /1 :· I• , We have ~xamined. the judgme:nt, of the learned tri;,l judg0.. I · I 11 . I I ,1; I ,i( and the evidence adduced' on ·both 1sides at the trial of. the petiti·)fi 1 . : i . and we are sa~isfied that the learned ;, I trial judge cannot be Iii ,j faulted in-rejecting the ev,idenc4° a,1ctctuced by the appellant 1 s sidq I - i" : . . i/ I I. I on this po'int. All the wi tnes se~, tncluding the appellant· himself,·· !;' had an interest tp serve _in denylngI any involvement in or connecti;J!l . .. . I : ,· with a ~orrupt.practice. , 1· Ii ' 1- · 1: I I' I On the other hand, the learndd trial judge gave ,reasons why ·r ., • • :/ I: I. he found PoWo17 .a t.;-uthful

w1tne/3s /'when he stab3d in h:ls judgment:':"'.' I. 11 ·r · I think, on my part,;// tl1at Ivan is a witness of truth~ He is a simple villa./ge.t;; who testifi<:d steadily and . I' with ·.a clear mind I. ::Even the sec•Jnd respondent conceded that a perJ~n;of Ivan's I.~., was inc~pabl2 of fabricating. such • ,. Jtory. I 11 • /a I . :. / . ' Thus the mentality of P.Wa17 and' the rnanne.r in which he testifi(~.·- • 11 I . " in ~ourt plus his unsophisticatJd I !character ~3re. some factors . · • i I. for the trial judge's finding hJm to be a truthful witness. · 'I :i The. learned tria;L judge tlien:/ considered th~ suggestion ., . ~ that PoW.-17 c.ould have been tau~hti/ what to say in court. ' . I 11! Hi; . ,I /; rej~cted this suggestion. after. qon pider1ng 1 certain factors cqncerni_ng the conduct of . 'P.Wu1t, rfand of other persons subsequent·· ;.,. .· .•, • to the election~ We think t:hat/i/ th,~ learned tr.ic1l judge erron;9u$\y' , _''. '.', · ; Ii i .. ', • . ' I' described these factors as corrbbo~ating P.W.17's testimony. . I: I 1: I The conduct of PaW.17 and of th¢ qi'ther persons c;u];i.s;~q,1.ent to : I the election were, il(l fc1ct·, th2/! ba sis for the learn(.;d trial 1 i .. i judge's rejection of th~ sugges~i~n that P.W.17 had been taught I i what to say in court. I i I :/ I I , .. : ..-', .;~. ,; ,. , .. . ' ' 'I • '. 'I .'(f ,;;,· ,r.· . ., .,.,.._· ,· . ("·'.,

. ._,•, .·.-y··/ .. . . Mra Lakha has urged this Cci>urt to f::.nd it improb~ble s - I;' j ii ! . "Cl II 'i ,-:1:1:r .. ... that the appell.ant could deliVt::r :thr hoes in th~ presenc~ of l 1 . I 1 P.W.17 ~h9 was' a str~nger to the 1tr:~nsaction and without making 1 I' I . II arrangements to ensure that the vot ers woul.d be informed of the·· 1 I 1 1 delivery before th~ election day'J ·But -there was evidence to 11 I, II • the effect that the delivery of thel hoes·was made in pursuance . 1: ,le ' of a previous arrangement. P.W.l7 ~estified on this. point ,I i· '' . by -saying:- . \ .r: !f I . 1 i 1: i·, 1· .! ,. ' ' 11 Chiwanga then told them he had brqught th~ parcel as promised and saict,I t~at they · should not forget that his symbol wcs !a Hoe.". I I Thi~ indicates strongly that ·;:he!~e ljhad bL~en a previous arrangemi::r. t , .I I ,I • I' i ens b e t ween. th e appe 11 an t an d t. h e r~cip t o f th e h oes, Th e f aG t· . · II I I I ' . ' ·• ' i· ' ~at the hoes were delivered on 1:t:h~ eve of the ,:lect:lon. does ~oj: . . . I i . j affect the weight of the eviddnc ;e ~gainst t.he r;;·,JtJellant, since . ' 1,· i 1 '1 !II there is nothin,g to suggest that the hoes were wailable much 'J l 11 II ·' earlier. ,J 1: . There was also an argument; aJvtinced . tha·..: P.W~17 could not ,, 1, r have identified the appella~t a~ t~e time when '1e is alleqed i; i' Ii i to have

d~liv~red the hoes. 'IHe learned trial judge was aware ' : 1.: ., .'ll of thi s ma tt er wen h h e s t a t e d iq t . Ii h is J~ d gmen·:- I~ • ,1 '1, i,.· "Ivan-said he knew Chiwanga, having previously seen ·him at a campaign mJe ting o Secondly, he said • considerable·time w~ntl by from the time the •vehicle arriv.ed to the time l11c,' left. There w~s I talking ) 1 and talking·.', to us~ h ll..s own words. 11 ., 1 . · I i The learned· trial. judge took -~his l:t:o be sufficient basis for.. :I :I PoW.17 1 $ identificati6n of the ~~J~llant. i ' !j We have given the :point of d;i:-edibili ty and iden tif:l.cation II ' '·: i 'i i our fullest attention but wo: are f;unable to disagree viith Ii : the views aryd findings of the l,~a.tfned trial judge on these I; I 11 I · points. I ,,I I!" ,, I I , •.•••w.,/9 . ! I . ' 1 I"' ' In the final a-naylsis' t~erefore, we are of the view that the leafned trial judgf was wrong ir~ finding that th"= dlsp:lay of· electi~n symbols amounted to a;n ".i:t.legal practice" within ', I ', . ; :j ., ' .the meaning of the .E1e<;:tions Act;• b~t he was correct in finding '-.) . l ·_ ! that.the a~pellant was guilty of .a dor~upt practice in deliverin0. I ' • 1 i ': i hoes at Nghonghona Village for the purpose of influencing voters :I , . .( to ~lect -~im~ A corrupt practice· by a candidate, like th~ . \ . ~ appelr~nt, is a sufficient ground for avoiding

an election by. virtue of the provisions of secti}m ·123(3)(d) of the Elections Act, 19700 On thfs basis, therefore, we dismiss the appeal wi t:h costs to be taxed. I I' f ., DATED at DAR ES SALt\AM th'i~ '.l.4th day of f\ovember, 1981. i . -: ! F. L. NYAL LI CHIEF ,JUSTICE :A. MUS'I'AF'A :JUSTICE OF J\l?PEAL ,' i • L. M. MAKAME · JUSTICE OF' ,\PPEAL this is.a true copy of tho originalo I • ~=Jtr~;LUSA:Y::"~~~ SE,NIOR DEPUTY REGIS'l'RAH