19980828 TZHC Dodoma

,J j• (PC). CRIM:£1-.,.L APPB.,L NO. ~ O:IT 1998 · ·. . ·~ . . -t~ -thf,i) ciEj.cision c:.i' the District Court ()ft_fON:DOh · District a~ #.J1IDO,• in Cft.mi1ial .•;.ppe1:iJ,. No •. 2. ~ 1998..... priginil·_Criminal Case i Io. 107 of 199? a.·UBI 1 Primary Court) &J\1LSI MOH.-.MillI ••• • ••• • ••••• • ~. • ••• • ••• • • .a'J'P~NI' Vereus J U D G M :G N T In the Primary Court .:..t Haubi, Kondoa, the; respondent was ehari;ed with CriminQl trespuss c/s 85 of the Penal Cede, CD.p.16. After a trinl the said Court found thd the c:.v.:.ilable evidence was insufficient to grow1d a conviction for thE: offence chD.rged. Instead, it founJ th~t the evidence established th0 offence of Disobedience of a lawful order c/s 124 of the Penal Code. The respondent was then convict8d of this latter offence and sentenced to a term of imprieonmerit of six(6) months •. Disatisfied. he su- ccessfully appealed to the District Court at Kondo.:.. The District Court found that there, was no evidence to establish e.n offence under s.124 of the Penal Code. This is an appeal against the,• findings and conclusions of the Disti::ict :tr... Court., , • ...... t' I . · .N~~s;lless to say, this was a criminal case in which conviction duld only lie on ptoo~ of the prosecuti<?n _c8fe beyond reasonable doubt. As'.co~rectly held by the Distric~ Court,this onus was~ No evid~nce. was produc1,4··· ~a_i there was dischc1rged•.• ~ iµwJui - ~ th,>.'c was i3sued an,:. (the~~~ di#y:Jl1oy I! 4-llYtJ:iin; the sai<l w- 111c;r \iC.S gnly mcmtionec1 in ~h~ .J~clgm.:;;!1'i In the ~~QW.'ls·t,mcee s. it ia •bvio·1.1s th&.t no conviqtiQh •·ould l,~c., •: the alJ.0c,;vd ~~-re~ce in -~~11; abs..;;nco · of concre• ovid,mce - tQ p;i;oove it. ' ' .~_-,.'..~.\· ~i ...,.;· ~- l ·1 J j I . 1·- .,. : ....·--.2 : t• --.- • ~ - ~ 1 , In the peti tion of appeal th"'re is cine point ~;hie~· ·de~ . r serves special mention i.e. the clle~ation by the app~llant that he unsuccessfully prays:)d to the District Magis.trate for chan,ge of venue. Perhaps, I sho~ld remind the Magistr~te that it is not always good to insist on hearing a case when the party ori. parties t6 a CME: have apflied f.or ch.::mge of venue for lack of confidence in the magistr~te:. In the words of Mfalila, J- .Ag.J.(as he then was) in -Zabrpn Pan_gar~c_;lezD.,.. v Jociqm Kiw~$..e., a.."ld J.nother C.;1..T. Ci.Y,il .•:.r,2eal. no.33/87 a••••••••••The safest thing to do for a judicial officer who finds his j rt:eegzt:j~'c question~ d by litigap.ts or accused persons before him, is to give the benefit of doubt to his irrational accusers and retir8 from the case unless it is quite cle,:ir from the SW'l'~nding circumstances and the history of the ca.se th:.~t the accus0d is employin::; delaying tactics. Apart from ensuring that justice is se0n to be done, he""' ~ .,, ..- -t"o•-.......,.._ ,;,. "'?::•~~ .... saves :: • C• himself from unnecessa,ry . ~7)· .. embarassment . . . ... . •.•.•.• ..,.... l.tn- .. ~ In the instapt ci:1.Se,,v.~he appallate Distr.ict r~agistrat~ qoul.d ,hp:~e easily disqualifieq ,hims~lf from M ~ ~ t 4 e appeal,;~·- /uic~-·-~;t_nce there is mor·r:: thc:11 0}1e m~istrate at Aondq_e, the .appeaj. c.9.ul.d have easily GJten det~rmined. by anotJ:ier.1·magistl;_'at_e •. , I ;not~ce'f: however, that. there · was no failure of', ju13tic.e on. a~cqunt ;e-t: ·:the magistrate's -.refusal to acced3 to the r:eques,t.. .:for ch_ange_ :.o:t: .; • venue. i.s _eali:er state~, ~h~ evidence . at. . ...:.~:-; the trial fell short of ~s_tablishi~g ~he off:~pce the respondent was convicted of• • . ..,_ .:, ••v~ ...._. --. ,.. • 'f •:, • It was therefore inorltable that the appell~te .Distr~ct Magistrate • ,, ,; . " . ' . . .. ,.J.. .......... :.. would det0rmine th~ appeal in the manmir h~ did. Indeed, 7ven i•' . .,,, ,., \ .. • •• ~- ~).:~ .. i" •• • •f' J. _ -~l-·- _.l..J _ c.:~:.....!1,;_;.::..; •F ··- ~~·._: · .... (; • • 'l., •' ~. _• •• _• • • • - _ •• ••.•• .... • • •.:7;•,;. ~- 1 .!.. \,I _ ,.J'.' .:. .. ,_- -. - '•.·: · 1:-. .. J]Qli~i :,:• , 20/8/9~ ... ... s·. B. Lukelelwa, DR' ·, Coram': A_p:pellant n · d (l?r.esent .a.espon ent"·' C/0: Chalamila .Order: Judgment deliver1;;d in, Ccurt this 28th ;:~ugust, 1998. DISTRIC']. R:iGIST&..._q 28/8/98 ••• /ask~ ' l