19770606 TZHC Mwanza

/ i -1c cW—' IN THE HIGH COUHT OF TrHZANIA 1 A T'1 7. L' API :LIjATH JULISDICTION HIGH COUNT CNL.I1,rAL AFUHAL NO 8 ON 1977 (Original Criminal' Case No.79 of 1977 of the District Court of BuJoba Distrit at Bujtoha Before J.J.D. Shayo, 'Esq., Fee. ;tagistrate) SHBIKH S ALULH' IIBJmINA & 3 OTHERS ..,. . . versus THE RUPUTBLIC .............. ....... RESPONDENT CHGE Being members of an unlawfl society contrary to section 20 of the Soci'eties' Ordi,nanc, Cap.337 of the Laws. JUDGEMENT PWALII, J. - In the District Court at Bukoba, the appellants were charged with the offence of being niembers of an unlawful society contrary to section 20of the Societiest Ordinance'Cap.337 of the Laws. According to the record, they pleaded guilty, thereupon they. were convicted and sentenced to fines of .shs'.850/= each or in defc.ult 12 months imprisonnient. All of them appealed against convictions and sentences. The record of trial of the appellants is of the most unusual kind, there may be several explanations for this, but the most outstanding is the Magistrate t s unfamiliarity with Criminal Procedure as laid down in the Criminal Procedure Code. First of all, it is the duty of all trial magistates to check and ensure that the accused persons before them are charged under the correct sections of the law cited. In this particular case, the charge sheet stated that the society to which the appellants are allegedly members was declared an unlawful society under Government Notice No.208/75. If the Magistrate had checked he would not have failed to see that Government Notice No.208/75 was made under section 24(1) of the Ordinance hence it had nothing to do with declaring any society unlawful. The society in question was declared unlawful vide Government Notice No. 207/75 which was appropriately made under section 6A(4)(1) of the Ordinance. Secondly, the Magistrate should really make efforts to come to grips with criminal :rocedure. The procedure he adopted in taking down the appellant pleas of guilty is certainly novel. He did not take down the apnel]..ants' pleas he only recorded the outcome i.e. a series of Guilty, Thus it is not known on what actual words of the appellants the Hagistrate ente red pleas of guilty. After the facts, the appellants were not asked to deny, or agree to thorn, they were simply asked to say something in mitigation. After the so called mitigations, the Nagistrae, summarised the whole case and then wrote judgernent. I. do not want to write another guide for taking down pleas of guilty in criminal trials, for there. are numerous judgernents in the law reports to this effect. I ....../2 2 All that the iA:.is irate necd.s to do i.e to study the relevant cases reported in the law re:I:ontL. fhirdly and t is .s Jc osi ino teL the Miagis 7 rato proceeded to eer ce c ec aj iet the e1luius withoat the wl±1 on cocsrt of the Pirocthr of Th'ilic iroscceiiciio As the appellph±6 no e Not c es boa ur 1 cr the r oois of section 26 or sub-section .02 of Section 27, they could not be prococuted without the consent of the Director of Thbllc Prosecutions under section 25 of the Ordinance. As thone was no.: such. consent, thsir trial was a. nullity. ir. Finda who aiperod for the Popublic at the Waring of this appeal d.ecjined to support the appellants convictions, and on the above considerations, I agree with his ase ssmen. In the result 5 those appeals suceed. Thhc aope 1 ].anus convictions are civashod and Un scnoiacee At abid- K nTh67fineo:wtiph,were.oaia shQyld be reuacod to them and any of thorn committed to. Prison in default should be released forthwith unless otherwise lawfully detained. Delivered inCoht at Awan. a'this 6th day of June, 1977. A' id' 'PZI-I L IhFALllA 6TFJ1JT . .. . JUDGE