19930315 TZHC Dar es Salaam

IN THE HIGH CC1Ji'T CF Tli.NZA1HJ~ (DC) CRD1Ii'J.lL J';,;?"I:El,:, NO'~ 22 OF 1992 (Frr1 t:c.e docisL,,..,_ ·.:-f tho District C-:::urt of M~r::gol!'O '.'.t J,i:.:-·r:~c;c.r:) 1:--. Crir.u:-.cl Appcnl No~ 62 :,f 192) SELfillf.;.U.! Rli.Ml.DI·IL.NI 1:..i'I'ELLl~NT versus M0Hi.l'l'JEI> KIB:.. IlUA. TIES?mYDEWT

JUDGMENT T!1is is c.r. nppc~l by Seleno.i::I, ~.dho.~11 ace.inst the judgraent c.nd se,·:te:ice of tl..,_e District . Court of 1i nonths• inpris.or:.nor. t·~ In order t~. n:'..ke it eo.siol." f::,p nnyone t, tci_O'ii t:,.e ren.so:~ng in this:~ judgne:1t it beh::ves ne t:; set ::-iut 1n det~.U; w11n; t\et'1.'lll;y happenea'; M~!10I:led Kib~rm 3UQd Se~u R!lll.~d~--.r.C. i,..~ the Zrimry C~urt \ c.lo.inir:.e tho.t t!1e l~.tter hr-.d tnken ½aero oi t~i.e fomer' s 1:).nd; Meil-le.nod Ki bc.ru.a. w-- :-_ t~.e suit; ae1ano.r..i Rc-.n~.a:i..-,.ni o.ppenled t, the District ·c:mrt. Salenc.ni R~.d:i.o.rd,. ].est in t...'w ~strict Cle~ But ScleD.c.:u. Ro.n..".dhnd. did. not len-..:.e. 31.c!~..a. the pie8e. of lnncl, i11. dispute - whicl1 hna bee:1 ndjudged to be o·f Molk'l.Ileci KLJ:,nrw-.~ I\i,.'J~.o.ed. Kibnrun. repc.rted the nc.tter to QCJ.di Ilno:i.s1 whe::i. hEl !cund :5-el.ene.r.d. n::.n.e.d)L~ • :pla.nting i.!1 t1'.1e lc.nd no.judged· to 'be 1:-..is·~ 1:c.11.e. lZl,:t~:r ~Ga· tql 111. tbe.. l?rin'.".ry Court after n ehnrge s ~ t hc.d bec11. cpenecr_ by the l?o1i..oe.s. cho.rgi5-ig Selenruu. Rc.uaa.:-1c.:u. with dia~becli~-:i.ee of o; lawful :;rd.~r c~n trc,ry t:::· secti::-:n 124 ~f the I'eno.l Cc:,de'; · SolenarJ. Rru:io.dh.nni W0.S convicted Q.S c:10.rged o.nd. fined. shs·;2,000/= or 4 Dcmths inpria,."'J~ in defc.ult~ He did net a.ppeo.1·; So fnr the ab:we facts n.re not

in 0..1.spute; . . "oordj_:,e t'.J M~h~ec'l K1.b:-:run.t s~il~n:11~ R..~~htl....., <U.d net st?p his inti .. -n intc the lc.nd 'Jf M'.'.'lh2.ned Kib~~'~ · Mo:1?n.ed 1<'.ib~ then appealed t·. , -~ District C:urt; U!1fC'rtuno.tely, even nftei- di.ti.gent 2 search for the neworo.:"'dun '.)f c.1)peo.l of M:::,h.3.ned Kibl:',rua w!1ich he filed in t:ie District Ccurt I wns u:.1.0.blc t'.."\ see '."'ne'; But the. pr:)ceedi:1gs in the District C"'•urt clearly sh:-:w t:-:st t:.:ere wG.s a nenornndun of appeal filed, o.:.1d one of t:.1e r:;r:nmds of nppenl 7 accnrd1.::g t0 t:1e judgnent , of t}1e District C-::urt, wo.s t:10.t Selennni Ro.nadh~:11 was still occupy- ii:g t:1e la:1d in dispute w:.1ic~1 ho.d bee:1 ad judged k, belo21g tc MohAraed Kibaruo. c.::1d t!:nt Sele1:ia~u. Ilo.Do.dho.ni b..'.::;d he.rvested 52½ bags of raaize fr-,n t:.1e shruJ.bo. ~f M-::-!1."'JI1Cd Kibnruc. w-::--rth s),_s·~357 9707/50·~ When the appeo.l wo.s l1e2.rd bef2re the District Mo.cistrete, M:-;hnQed Kibarua subni tted tl·:at Selena.Ju. Rano.c1:.1ar.i ho.d vic.,lat·ed the c::iurt 1 s orders and had harvested Mcho.ned Kibc.rua 1 s er-::-·ps Jf 1'.laize up tc-, 52·~5 bags and. that Selenn:;.i Rar:iadhe.rJ. was still oeoupyi~:s 4 aores :::f the smoba of Moh9,TI1ed Kibarua; Seler..1eni ~dhar'.!. derd.ec1 tc have That is when judguent was delivered a:1d. t.11.e lear-1ed. District Magistrate in ~s jud~nent

inplioi~ Ei.gJ!IC.ed with the acc~unt of Moho.med Kib,~,rua·~ He nls0 fc-.1.md that. there was need to en."1ance the se:1te:1ce passed ir': the l'rir..iary Court~ He' theref:,re called upon Sele:raani Ram:J.dl1a:-:i t::i show cause why ser:tenoe· sh-:-uld net be en.11.a.nced:. After heari':G :1im he enha:1ced the ~e?1tenee t'.) 12 mcnths 1 imprisonment', He als8 ~rdered t!1e.t !el,er.w.:1! ~ctlll:l.t:L e1~;,.-...sates Mchru:ied Kibarua · 52½ bass cf naize which S 0 J ema,·.i Ilo.mlldho.nj. f o ~ y - harvee.ted fr~ra the s!1anba .:Jf Mcho.nea. Kibaru'a:; This ie also-11.p.t in dispute ei the;~ . ' ' ~~ SelerJa~tl Rano.dha~·.i has .n::iw appealed t~ thie :c~urt·~ The first gr~w::d ::f appee.l is tl1nt ttthe pr::cedure is bnd in la.v~ and that the appellate l\fac;istra te s~.1.0uld ~1ot :iave enterlai~:ed the suit on appeal because it we.s eo,barroasingly- tl.ne t~red·~" In e,.:.~rl Jul& ian1tmc.p lea rr..ed. &cu:1sel f'.":r the appella11t arGued that the appeal in the District C-:-urt was tine barred.·~ T!l,e. resp_:,!1d1;.."1t fi'.'h:: appee.i-ed in persc-n said that it w.::-.s nc-,t;; He w(int :::,n to state t.t-ia.t the relevru.1t oase fil~ was 1:rl.spl<?.ced and was :·.:~1ly f:-1..md after 4 n'.':'nths', The resp::::1der:.t als0 sc.id . that :ie .appealed because he vva• net satisfied. with the fine cf shs.~2;00O/::;;· .I With regard t~ the ,-:;rcund on lin:LtatiJn -:::f

tine, I an not ,able to say .anyt)1inG because I was n:-,t able to find the nenoranduo af appeal'; T!1e records sl1:w that t}re cas~ wo,s finalized in the l'riDCry Court on 17/3/92 nnd the A,i1pellaut (Seleoa.n:l ~ h a .'1:i.} .. waa ... . ); { i' ~· ·, ~ -"-; 3 .• ) •,- d S,.-S"2,v f J.a.e 1-, ••, "00/=•-· The appeal co.DP "".:':::r .tl1e first tine befcre Neanya Senior District Maeistrate rn 4/8/92'~ In any case if the appeal was ' really :;ut ::::f tine, the party re8isting tl1e appeal shculd have said so when the natter went befsre the District Court for hear:tn~: He cannot raise such a sr::-und new in .t~1e High Court·; H-:,wever; a lthough I camnt trace the peti ti.:::n ::-f appeal I ho.ve c::me across o. letter fr'Jn the Prinary C::-urt 1\1::-rg:::ir::i Urban forwarding the J?rinary C0urt file after receiving o. 11 Co.lli!1G fcir Reo0ra.n letter fr-:n . the District C~rnrt~ The letter ,~f the I'rinary C::::urt is dated 7/4/92';' This tends to support t:ie respc-::de11t that the appealed. en. tine·; The first grund c::mceri1ing tinQ linita-ti::;n has nc nerit·~ The .other part of gr~w.1d 21:::·~ 1 stat~s that t~1e prc,13edure was bad in law'~ There does not appear to i)e any elabor;:i.ti::-:1 c:n tl:is grc·und by Mrs. Wanuuza. in her l • • ;., SU,)D1Ssl:m. The 3~- er:::und is that the judgnent was bad in law~ It gees cm t:::: state that there wae no ev:1.de.."'lee

sul)etantl,at,G the fact that the appellant hac1 sown 52 bags of oaize fr:::n the shanba~ I U..'1derstand. this to nean that there was no evic1e:1ce of a ha:r;vest by the appell0.J."lt of 52 bags of naize fron the shanba of the respondent·~ Mrs~ Wanuuza i:1e:~.,.---r~ ~c.c:. elaborated in her subnissior. on appeal that the i:ieue was that of ½ . i- acre of land ai:d that tl1e 3½ acng claioed by the resp:•nder.t tc have been taken over by the resp:mdent was a new cause of action·; The ~ appellant would have calle~ W'itne~ses in defence !f'this 3½ acre issue had cone as a fresh case·; She subni tted finally that the case was in the nature of a 6ivil case tc be. ctealt wi t:i civilly'~' ~ The resp·:nc~e~:t naintained in reply thl:.\,t the appeUru1t was warned by. the court not to .oul tivate in the respc1:dent 1 s lana·; Then the . respc•ndent appealed because the appella..'1t was o.ul tiv:ating his land'~ ;; The respcm1erit said asain that ::~@ appealed bui; the reason he gave ' ~· for the appeal war; that he was nst "a+.~es:fied with the :fine which the appellant ec t aR the appellant was st::.11 u~inr:; his land'~ y. Mrs·. Vla.tm'!llZa in reply so.i~ t'.'.la:t t~1e.re was no evidence of al.1.¥ intrusi::n or evidQnde to sh::::w that thi3 appellant had hal'V$S't<ld 52 ·,:H baes. .. t~ ( i ,,?" ·; ;·•• /4 I am at a loss e.s to why the r·,spondent appealed to the District Court~ If

it was due to the 'insufficiency or inadequacy of the sentence, the respondent would h:.we i.;aid so• But it appears that he appealed to the District C£lliHn~:'ter seeing the_ ~ppellant trespass into his land and gr·~v maize/3½ acres more of his lfmd. If that was the case'then the right step was not to appeal to the District Court but to have the appellant charged again:,._ for disobedience of a lawtuJ. order; He could do this either in the same Primary Court or even in · the District Court'; But there cannot be an appeal with a view of moving the appeal Court to act against.a person who has committed another disobedience of a lawful order;i The appeal by its nature is limited to issues which were dealt.with in a lower court and not an /,., appeal concerning new issues. ln this case if the appellant had once again trespassed into the respondent 1 s land, the correct action to take is the same sort of action like the one which was taken when the appellant entered into the respor.a.ent 1 ~ land and took½ acre contrary to the judgment of the Court in the civil case'~ For the above reasons I agree vd.th ~s. Wamu~a that the procedure followed was wrong and contrary to the law: It would appear from the judgment of the District Court that the reason why the appellant was given a -·custocl,ial sentence waa because he had again disobeyed the order of the Primary Court in the

Civil suit'~· .Even if there was an appeal against sentence by the respondent, . the reasons for enhancement of the sentence were extraneous·~ I therefore allow the appeal set aside ·the sentence and the order for compensation given. The appellant should be released forthwith·~ One last word, if the appellant or his agents or relatives are still occupying the land which has been held to belong to the· respondent or if the appellant ocatWied. 4 ae-rei;: o-1' +.r.iQ rg:pond.en\ as the respondent was el.a1llUn.g in the·appeal in the District Court, this judgment does not stop the r,?spondent in initiating a criminal. action as he did for the first tii.te when the appellant was fined shs·~2,000/=; Even compensation fvt' whatever is proved to have been taken out of the respondent's land may be ordered. All that I have said in my judgment is that the prcper procedure was not followed'~ The respondent is therefore at libfrty to deal with any case of disobedience of i:l. lavv.1' 1 "1"0"...,.. n,-,-'l 11 i,, !'>U<;h an r"l-f-fence is JH'CM'ed. a \ ;: !1 "• i. l t I • ~ustodial sentence_ is recommend-.id since i . t will not be the firs.t . ~ ,. -·' •,". disobedience over the, sam'e 1na.tte:r.'; .,, ..-••····'·'·-:··y'----·-- ::.·-·--:'t __ \' A. BAHA~I\ ' JUDGE' 15/3/93 Delivered to the parties. A. :8AHATI ·.

JVDGE lJ/~