20040430 TZHC Moshi

(D'J) CIVIL A•· __~·£AJ, :;O. 13 or ?.003 C/F RMQMOB::II 0:TU, CU?.; FO,, '.='.1 OF 200'1 RUT] C:-IARLS.S T'ARIMO This appeal b9..s bet?n preferred by Tanzania Reveriue Autho:.:. ity (herein re:Carrer'l to e.S the appellant or simply 0 TR.A) t·l·!a 1 -ms t'1e defendant-in ·l":::,shi 1:tesident; rv;a~ist~ates' Gourt •'Ji vil 0ase N'o~ 241 of 2001 0 ·T~1.~ respcmdent~ '.i.Uth ChA'.rles ·rar-imo was t!1e· p12.in-b.ff O -It uas a suit in which ·cbree ma.in reliefs weli 80U''.ht; namely, cnmpensation of s.hs. 3,000,000/.-:: alle~e°:1:Y ,stolen by ap-r;iellant ts officials from the resp'.)ndent 1B motor vehisJ.e ot t1:ie t"ime- of seizure; shs~ 892, g;~_.,1 l== being re-fund c,·~ ·?L~e i,rhir::·:1 t'.:ie r~sp:::ir;r] ent Is driver was condemnea to pay ant3 f;e:-ier.?l ,~amage.s the amount of which was t.o be de-termined by the cou:ct. As i~. usually thG case,. ~sts were. also praJecl for.. The facts on w',:1ich the suit was fo 1:'.11dea ,-,ere briefly tha·c on 3/~r/2001 -t.he appellant's officials and s::me poJ.ice?- men from Holili boarder p0st fo.rmed a. joint pa·c-rQl term a.nd were on -d along Mosb:i. .~ Dar es 3a.J.8am :co1:3d ~- vlhile ~\;y .,. at Cbelrn.reni area, they fo'...md m:-itor ve ~icle Reg. No. l"ISJ 1 25?- a ·Mi t,s ubishi Fusso lorry emergin.~£, · from a i-sede.t- ~.ad • • J • • 1 ~ryir:g a kerosene C'.":li1Si;;'.lrnent. O:r... seeL1g the appellant ff ID:)tor

vehi~le~-- the dri v\r of resp Cir.dent's motor v~hicle retreated ir:. ,the dirP.ction .from v.rbere it came. The appe- llant.'s offic.ials sus:;,ectec1 tha':; it was carrying uncustomed go_ods I t.be·:,:p\u:aue<l it 9 :r:,_ey fo~m:l it pat1ked at the village ma.cl:~~, It w.as surrounded by ,T1a.ny people who e.xhibi_:te<l , hostili~_! t'.> them some of wl)om :,7ere busy off ~ loarling kero- sene ·:=-·rom that ·motor vel1icle. In t:1at ~he patrol team was ••• .. .,/2 1 greatly out. numbe_:t\eQ ~ they di1J no~ C:L::re a:pp.I'e;1end tbe culpri- . ts a11cl the motor vehicle o I bey i"leci·1 ecJ to leave and i.1a.ylay 1 the driver on the main roado Later on they s~w it coming and stopped ito Although tbe c1riv2r o:c' t>st ri1'.JtoJ: vehicle bol tea away lE~avin~ the turn b')y al:::i:n_·e? th.~ petr0 J_ -::;earn -seized that motor vehicle and drove it to •their office at E'")lili.;' The respondent's driver however 9 su 1.v1itted himself to TRA officials on the same day" l:T2 wo.s c 1:.1.0.rc;en wi tl: the offence of conveying uncustomed goods· c/s 1Ll-5 of 'Bast Afri- can Customs IV:anagement Act l:foo 19 of 19700 U1)on t:rnt, he requested for settlement of th2 case o I1he r-21 uest was gra=• nted., He waB ordered to paJ 8 fine of '31-rno 625,000/,-=o He was also ordered to pay revenue of shs o 265 i 9L!--1 /,~ after which the mator vejicle wss ~eleased for·their collectiono Durins

the handing over ex2~cise, the 1river of that motor ve:11.cle and tbe res .,ornJent complainccl that Bhs o 3~000 1000/,., w::iich was kGpt in t· e motor '1e'c:1 icle was missingo Attet1pt to look for tha c motl8,Y v:a..,'3 T'13.0e ;)lfC to no availo It was th!?n that the respo-~1··:<2,::rc fi· 1r:--~ a s-.-i.t; v1:10~_;2 c12ciGion in the lo~er court is now being in0u~nedo ·I'he memorandum of appeal ra.ir,es ei:~::1t ·~_:r'o unu :,: o Tbe. first ground alleges that thG trial T11as;is·i_:Te.te e:;::recl in law and in fact in holding tirn.t th2 Z',:::':l)onc7 ent .:os o.s at 4o4o200'1 ~ the ;p,ightf'ul owner of mo-~~o:c ve:.ic le ·12 1:•. o ~\:"o o I-1SJ 257-; the dG.te on wlJich it W8.s seiz.C:i1 '"")Y tte:: B'Yr'=lls.nt o The e ..:iJ·11rrs 1·n -'-h"s _ ·ce•.l..i-:, Pro l,,.,l,. C 8.o ce -r·1.ave ~TC:, --.11 c-...~ -·-··,,·,,-)',rrh -,~.·:n,r,.a1°r1 ·i-•-a'.t- l, .... s.••·•·.---'·•~.~-· "-'-·V tl1_e seizure incid0nt O';cur:r,::d on 7>/L+/200'1 . . In my view, the i learn.20 a.efenc.e counsel :).as i1--:i.a0v2rte·:.i.tly cited LJ/4/2001 as t~e dated on whict the said motor v2ticle was seizedo I presu'T!e :10 in-cerirJerl to mean 3,J:-~2001. The <Jeci..sion of the trial cou:r:-t re,~arding ownership of ti.1at mcd:;o.r. vebicle was clear t;~ir:tt as at 3 .. 402001 it was the -propert,Y af the respori·'2;1.t., J1~~s~ court r·21.ied on section 15. of the Road :_~r2f-f"i~ Act tfQo 9

·(sic) of 19730 .: .· .'. , . ..r .... that the Road Traffi.c Act is ;_,:o,,. 3 of 1973 and not No.9 of ~. :.1. 1.· .s ,.-.r. a.,'"' ,,,_ga. i· 1·" r.i· ·!-,e.ll_,. 1 , 1;:,, "---' _ • .L _ 1· ·1oc~v"'1°·h::,·-itly , 1 .! .L • J..c I.C V '-- O _:,.-·-· ·· · T'1e J.e::n:ned counF:el fc.,r ·,:~1e BBJell.c:-mt ::rn·_jmitted in thi_s.:f~~a-;d that the title o~c ouners].1ip, of the motor vehi- cle which has been registGred uncler the laws of Tanzania is eoverned by the Road ·rreffj_c J.,_ct No• 9 (sic) of 1973 and that the term ; ownert is rlefinecJ lJD.cler secti'.)n 2 of the .said Act to be the person· c1-ppe3.rin:t; as t~1e 0vmer of the v2hicle o He submitted that becauSJa tbat VGtiicle· was· 8.8 at '+0402001 reg:Late.r.ed or appeared in the registratL)n ca.rd in the name :; II CY.f' Harold Jacob Mushi as per wnexture 11uth 1 to the plai:htj the trial court could not be said was ri~ht-in holding that ·the res1Jon.<1ent ,,1as its o~mer ~ :{e a.J_sa said t;:·!at tl1e nan1e of the respond~nt was endorsed_ in the .:regis·::-ration earn on ,; ·• ' • I~ the 8th, May; 2001 as•.JJl?X the rec:~ipt bE":aring ffo o TBA 13190358 which was issuea·--'~J5.th~~.-date., He sul,mitted therefore that~ prior to 8-ch I\~::i.y 5 2001 ~ anr1 ;?GT·tj c ula.rly on 4,,/L., 2001 when the motor vehicle was seized by t:.1e appellant's officials! the respondent ;,,as "'ti.6t ttw ~W'.t'J.e:r :y~ t 1·mt m-:,tor

vehicle, therefore tha.t she was not in _a position to claim or cha- llen2;e anything in respect of th2 seiz L1re effected on the 4ol!-.200'1 o He relied on case f.:f ::::uru .?.awad:1ani Vo Ally Rashidi 3alum POo C:lvil irppeel ~\oo '16 of 19q9') Hig:1 Court of Tanzania at Ta.b'ora (unreported) o eballenged On t:1e ·other band, learned C8 1.1nsel :;8r t:1e :r:2,s:::or/1ent tba.t bis learned,.,-.·friend·• s interpret;_;ti::m of t>e prov:i.:=::i:111s of section 45 of the Road Tra.f,:·ic Act was w:conr,_i; fo,: the reason that when that provision is read toc2ther with se- ction 5 of The Evidence Act 1967, ·iJ2_ :--.iu.<:1t t') 1PVE"~ tnovm that. there was a rebuttal)le px•:::,'J mr,p::tion of X0',1n2rship of that motor vehicleo · ~{e s,1'::rnittcd tl.1at -:::;:..'.ougl.:c it wo.s a fact -cna.t t h e mo t·or , L . ve b.1.c 1e.was I . ~t;,,~re,.1, in re' ;is . . ·cae ., D.8ine o f -- ~-;_~ixo J_,::;i.-'I Jacob Mushi 6n 4oL.J-.,200"i viJen tt,e ve'.:icl? was seized by the appellant~ it was the r2::;_p·::md2nt who v1as in physical posse- ssion m1.d u.se of the? s2cm8 h::iving pu:cc 122.se it from the :tormer 4 • ,. 0 0 O ./LJ,. Be added that she 1-vRS the ::.ine w~10 ;.Jired Mobamed i 7:-Juru (PW1) to driver it.,. tb-2 pe.Pson f'rom ~~>:>m it 1,,•rns seized O T-Ie sub- mitted further that seizure d◊cu~2nts were executed in the nan~e of' the respondent's d J:i vt?r 9 an,J that

r2ven1~c and fine was paid by the respon/lent her::c::lf t':1:::iuvh the .receJ.pts were issued in the n3me of PW-1 as weB .:-:vjJ: 2qcerl by exhifuits P .,2 a..'1d :P..6co It was further submitted that the vell:i cle was rc . - gisteret1 in the respondent I s nar.1e lon·~; be tore tl1e suit was lodged in court and that }Ie:rold ~L:.c(/'.:> Vusni 2.1ever .G8!!}e. for- ward to claim it from the appellant OX' the ri::s,~ondent for· t~1at matter., To stG.rt with,.. it is ceJ:tF.J.in t-1r:rt; the evid r:nc3 of Di,J1 Abba.ss Hati.b Joshua. cwtabl_i,shcd that as at 4~Ll-o2001 the motor vehicle Ha.s re;:-;iste:re,.:'l ii:. ti12 J.1arne of BaJ:>old J .. Mushi.7 a fact l:~1ich ma.y reasonably c'.er.:-:t•: ..1e ~ne to think that it wa.s owne,7 by him.,. However, af.1 r:;1_1:)mi :~t;:.?cl by counsel for the responde:iTc, pre:-.:; umpti~m es to :')1.JY .2.r:7i: dp of a. m8tor vehicle. 1 is rebuttG:ble under the provi~:"i_ons o? :'.ie:ction '15 of the Rood ~~r3ffic Act~ 1973 .:r0ccJ -i:;'.) et:1er 1-d th r:::ection 5 of the iaw of ·8}vid :::nee :\ct 7 1967. ".J:J.E1 ·c d :)e;3 t:·w.t E1ean'? R2buttable pr2-sL1 inptj 0l1S :::t le;:! =::J::,2 :i.r.f2J:2nces vl:iich the law :requires to be dr·1wn f:c:om c;iven fac-ts ~ and '>. hich 1 are conclusive until -aisp:roved b,7 -2vir1,~nce to t~e contrary o vie h.sve been informed, and doctfo.1,2n·i.:ar7 :~vi("'.ence Fa.s t'cere to e,stablish th8t as

at L,l,,.4.20O1; l;!'_J":;:::ir v211icle ~:2g., No .. MSJ 257 1·1as registered in the. 1:::.2.m2 of l-I:;ro lrl J .. Mus bi• ,:i}l1e immediate question b2com2s .~ w::;s t'..1ere evir1ence to su~port·. AlthOLl[~h. Fe.rold J,o Mus:..-,i vfr'l,'J D.'.:,t caller1 to tes-cify on the respoi.10ent•s side, in my view ·c1-:ie:re was adeq:..1ate evidence to p:i:'ove that the m,:;tor v2ti~·le was .as at 4" 1-!-o2001 oi-r.net: by the .r~sponaent on {~')~ '.:round that it. wa.s .!~1e ree.pon. ~!ent it!ho i-\1'8.S in physical px-sse;-:;sion a.nd use c6J;;:;·thaJG vahicle as at that da.te 2nd t)'lat ;:.;).-,e wc.1.s the one who hired r•~ohamed Nuru to driver it• t112 peruo:n from whom it wa.s sei~ed- FuJ:i-i;.hcr, seizure f!o,::um2nts v,;ere"•executerJ in the name of Pw'1 ano that r2ve11ue a11.rl f:i.ne .;·;?.s \>8·:ta by the res:Jonc1 en.t,. • .,...,,. .. ••I __ , . _ . . . . . . . . . . I 'fU,t--- ., - '" ,4•• ·5;. . Po2 tl..11(! ::=-ooo . ~~tic; :-:;ls'.:J -·,_:Yt in.sL1·.~,:tantial t!~1at the vehicle was 1o~~J~ in court nna t~~t 37~~1cl Jacob Musbi never came forwa.:-cd t:) claim it from t~··:.:: 8 ''.)2ll ":::-1t or the respondent o T my . opin1.on _n . . t',_1(; c8se o_f F,·,n ' 1-2.•[ e:::1" -T ' .~.. uru l_;upra ) J.s 1. ~ . t' ais . 1ngu1- 9 .si1able o In the ci1.:~um~t::i·,1ces'9 tr.:.01..: · '1 fo.r diff2r0nt -reasons, the- trial courtJ.3 f.; nfliE ~ on t'1is pai:r:.rt; 11,:iB not·

i:nva lid. T1is ~:;roLmd fails .• ·The second ground a.f ar,peal allcbos t: 1~-:,-'_; the trial magistrB.t8 erred in la\/.r a.n.d in fact in hol hn7 that seizure 0 of th~ said motor vehicle was unjustified• The app2llant 1 s counsel submitted in this :cega.n1 t'.1st mot Qr vehicle ~e@f~ r-T0 o MSJ 257" Nas conveyin:;; u:;.1custon:2rJ kerosene c/s 1-4-'.:J (ti) of Ca.p 27.. Thi•s. fs.ct was orl:1itted by P\11 0 He suomitted further t;:13-t in c:m:'.~equ2n,~,~ ·t:·1.?.:i:eof, tc.c1t c'Jn.:sip;nment as whole tt33 liabl~ for forfeit0r0 in teJ:'mB of section 155(c) of Cap 27 ~ ar1c1 in te:J:'·,1s of :-::ectj_'.)n '156 ( '1) of 0a·1; 27,. motor _. • • • • I • vehicle ~~:3J 2=:,7 tco ~ ~-; -,,.:; liah le t') :)e forfei tec1., B.e topped tbe:t -~r:v:,_ rrncb a fo~ti.:a.l situa-t:iont t'.::e r::i.p";_)ollant 's offi~is.ls were ju,,;;ified in seizin"--: t 11e :,:":!id mot'.)r- ve:::iicle, so that the trial 1:~ar,is·!~rote e1:Toc1 in lm-1 a:i1.(~ in feet in ho1.diw::: tha-t .seizuro of th"t motor v2:Jicle •:1D..:J u~.-:i.ju::t:i.fia 1Jl-e.• On. his part .• counsel ?~H' t:.~12 r2s- or.i_.·: en.t r:w'Jtui tt~a that on t 1:1e .-,,-,ri· r1 e-n('-::, on r>?c'"'rf'; f ,·i-:1e- ·'·-.,1· ;.\1 C'"\P,,·'L- ~,1• -~:iJL,- J..Y l-,e1~ .. _, V ...1 .l.!. v C . ,,, . J -•- \J~ ...... ,.,, ~ - !... , __ , ~ 7 <.!, tbat seizure of the r2s~on~ent's m~tnr ~8hicle waG unjus~i- fiea. He gave t;:,JO ~eas.on::;

~ fir-;-..:; t::is.+. t>-,_sr0 WG.S •~vic1 er:icJ . to the effect th.at tl-1e lorry 1:,r'.:ls irnpouna ·-,n 10:1':; after the allegea kerosene was offlo'2ded by owne:rs in t:_Ji? :presen_nc of the appello11t 1 s or'ficial and a:i:i:ned p01:: c ""·~,.1.::~11, 81.'ld that 0 the people who i-.Jere offloa.aing tbe 82.id ke:cQ.s:::n.ei includ.ing onlaokers were; n:it armed-. =-fo~·rever, t:1e7 112i t':1er arrested the culprits nor 1mpcrunde0 t;~,e ~rnr0-scne 0 T1:le secc:n.c! reason was that t~1ere i,JD..s n,:i p.r-:i0f t,:mt the ;=n.id kerosene wa.s ~11"cr2b~:-..1r:l O L': su0rni tteci furt:1cr t':12ct ir1.1pound:.Jent of the :)f taxes, ll uty 8.na fine of and pr~nf of twc f~ts; ·r one that kerosene ivas imported secrindly that cbstom duty on the said k2r~se~e ~Js ~aver paid_fullowing or before the said importati.:m 5 bot:.: of 1,-,.:·ir::D. i.1e sa j d 7 . r.rere '·, not pr:rven., He added that tbe f;-:;ct t):1st ·i;'-:2 38 id J.r.,:::..,::isene had to be offloaded is ·not in it,self i)r~J::>f t'.:,:it t'. 1 .:: some? . that was uncushrn1ed·., ~:l:e challenged tbnt 1:-1::is speculs.'~:i.'.ln~· r.J.:)re . . 1 . so where armed p_olicem.en mGde n:-:i c 'f:Jrts to inter~re11,~ a On page 5 of its typed ;;urJ 0 ti1e;,t'J t::2 -~rial c,Ju~_,t :1eld that seizure of that motor vehicle was unjustified on the ground that it was d cine aft2r th2 nlle::cdly 1':1.costurncd consj_c.;nrnent of

L2rosene ti.ad 1:)2.::-:·Cl offl'.:lacleC ~ :Ti "t:1:i.la:rly that appelhmt ts officials fai. le{~ t,J . a;pre:.12nd t~.:tc o:,:ner.s of that ker'J:38i12., Jn my v:i.ei?J, thin is a cc1se in ,,,l:.ich one may be ;ju;.:i"t:i::ied to say t'iot the evidence for clefence was misapprc:1enc}ed by t'.J~ le.srned trial c'.::>urt magistrateo I will attem::.:,t to demonstra_te t·::,yc t'.:2 trial court did not advert to anc7 actuaJ.ly foi l2r'l to 2vJ.l •.·.J.te the eviclence on recorJ .. T::1e 2vicJ ence of DvJ2. .:=ind D>::T3 ~!c: s t>.1.,<:i -:; :-!n :i ··ri vinr: at Chekereni area ttey saw m~tor vehicle R2r., ~~a •«3J 257 emerging from a feeder road l-2s.d:i.ne; tJ ·:_;:1e villase m2.rket ' w~ich wa.s loaded with cans coata·Lri~.t'.!'. 1"2I''):-J,·:nc.. ---n seeing them, t)e driver of thQt vehicle rcv rsed it and ~rovG 0 bac 1:: to the vi.lla.E;e m2-.rket 0 •Jlhey pursi.1crl it a·::c; f2Lmd it p.s.rked at the market. :?e:iple were busy o"i°'fJ.o:_ir1ir:.cr; the consiuiment. Tbey thou.-- bt of ,'."3eizine~ tr1e c onsi.r--,nDen-t ~ but that t:1.~ villagers threat·::ned to sb2 13 bln'3d i::: ~;:12y made any attempts t'J seize t"ci::is2 ~'.Jods. 1.l1~")<-:se wi ::;:ne.'rnGs testi-.. fiec1 frn::·t~:er t '.!a·:.:; beca_:.:,se t·:1ey rj ::nsecJ tha.t c:m?r'.::>n-cation > live3 i t·, 1 ey rl2c::i_ded to leave; tt2 plar;c 1,vith a view of way laying them.on t~c main r8adl •]:l)(.:?ir plan

wn.s sL1ccessful.,1 ~i:11ey later them C'.:"l"Giir:i_:_ an·-1 uto:1ped them 0 '.JD. S8W They impounded tha.-c vehicle.• In my opL1iol} tr_.e p3:tr':ll t2a-n <;,1c·:~2d dil.i?ei.1.t"!.y in not confroaU.11p; the , 7 i.llag2rs,, :_12 ccTncit _;_cr:le '.::>LrC the possibility of loss of li v0B had they co-n-:"-cont0rl them• 78c.sus~ of that• ,. fl/ •·• ... / '? ' •. fl 7/- :--)1m~nt ~ ::mrl ti.'J.at -;_;,:1ere 1 ·l8C.i ~!.'J ~-m~: '.)f" lc.1owing the owners of t~1e co11sj_gn111ent.o This n.cc0:.1nts -1'!'.-Y tL:ey dicl not apprehend themo l!JYen 9 this was S·J 'J2::cGJ2 ti,~j (~river of that ,vehicle dirl not cooperGte wj th th.c .3PY.JCJ.l:::in-i:~ 1 s 0f'ficials o :?or these reasons I find t 1.1at th2::::c ·.---:-s . ,11.~s :--i ?icc:~ion in impou- ml in~~ the ssid mot0r· v-e11i1;lc :,~i.e. ·:~--!2 ~y:•2· j_ ::::s t·.:2 sc:c'.);_1d 0 1 gronnd of appeal has merits 0.ncl su~cc-:::d;:.:; o ·The third r:round alleges t1·l8t t;1e: -:~ricl m,2~ist:,.'3.te misdirected herst±!-' in law ond i.n fc1ct in 'c1'Jlrlj ri:~ t'.:c.t the assessment and uli tirrwte pa,y--PeD.t of s~1s J~92 ~ 9•4-"i /, z:-X'i.s1 1.1r: out of comp,'.:>undment proceedinr;s w,:rn c·::ccssi ve o ?or t·.ie sake of convenience 'I J s ugcest for t:1is --r'.) u:t1cl to be b:cidged with the sixth rsround which dvmll.s on v(:-2t 1.1,:-:c t'.::i.e trial magistrate erred 'in law and in fact in h'.) lchnr; tbat

the compoundni:.:.n·c docu·,.-,ents were si·;nel'l under coerciono a:,9p2llant 's coun- ~1e· c:in-Gc•~v-:eu t;::::it ?o.:r the ci,a.rge f::;L1wJed urnJer section 1L!-5(b) of· C,i.p ?7 ~ punisb,1211.t i;:-1 ).I'G~Jcribecl under section 1 '-l-5 ( C) Act No o '16 of 199 1-~. · He as::;e:,_,te·' t'.Jc:1.t bee a use the respo~• nr'!ent 's (1:c:Lver bs.rgain.e-:1 for o. plc.~. :Jf ?1.1il·cy ~ c::Y,nvrnndment wa,s done in terms of sccti'Ji.1 '173 (1) a:f that same statute which e~f:):Jwcrs the appellant 1 .s of?iccr in c::r;:;,pcnmdment pr0ceec!ings to orcler payment Jf a sum of TJ1'.)j_1ey nat excee- din~ sL1ch a..mollnt a person wl.1.0 has plec.,.Jed HJtild have been liable to -:p-ay. j_f he hGd been proE:;cuted and ~o,.-:i.v:i.ct2d Lm.der section 1LJ-5 ( c) (iii) of C8.p o2?., ::::c s•:,1:rmitt2c7 t>erefore that because the IBB.Ximum pena.lty f'.Jr sl1c:.1 offe::1ce under section '145 (c) (iii) as amended is shsorne MiJlion two :-i,undred and fify thous3.nd.~ t11e amom:i.-c '.)f Shso 892~9W1/== was beloi.r, t'. ,2 amount i)rcscribed .. 1 )_::;ncc ·:·./1a.t the di•:;cretion . E • Ol":. i;::; po.rt C'.)tEisC:::l for t 11e rc~.spo:o/lcnt co;.1tend ed that t·::.e L::3-JJ. -~)I':)vi.sions cit1:: J by bis les.rn2fl friend did not 1 apply in t::}e ;,_rpecis.l circ.tr,ist,uwcs of this case~ He gave o.,ooo•/8 8/.- tl1ree reaD8Il?; for this; :C-irst tb:::.-c t;_iore was no ju3tifica•~ tion

for seizure o:f tire r,~s:J:Ycde:trc r n vr:!hicle; scc~F1d ly that th~ value of th0 kerosene far which t½e custom duty was alle13:e(lly not po.id wG.s nTc k:-c.'.)Hn o:;.1. t;;.~.~: ~;r::,1rc-10 that the sa-- me was not com"9ounded; n:;.1.rl d:ri 11er did not volunta.rily ·offence .. · of in view of this court's ground of appeal.. It rJoes n::,t t;.1c:,:c<"ore Ecqt..:ir2 a seccmd consideraticino I will only consider th2 ather ospccts raisedo It is certain thc;t Pd1 1.-r'.",S chG.:.:g•=rl L~l1r1er t 1:'e provisions of section 145 (b) o.nd (c) (iii) of 0a:) 2'?1> ·1\s alred.dy point~i:7 'JUt9 be bar:sai;_1er1 '.0TC a. p~_ca. of gtlilty o The lea.r•- ned ccrn:nsel for th? res-~>onclcJ.1t 1.:ias 2.sserted ih this regard that the respondent I s driver (hr! n.'"l·c v::-ilLnTcerily confess to have committed the offenceo Be rep2ated this submission in resp:~r,~t 0f the sixth csr'.'Jt~D.rl >:i:c 1-r:1icb tie s2,id the trie.l were si?).12d uncJer coercio;:i .. m 11e .L',... apr -- 1·· : ;./'-- 1· 0 -nt·· I,..c corrrplc:,.; u,..,_ '"'- . u ..l.-,1·'- I., trial co\J.:rt 1·.ras wrong is :hot insL1b3tnn.ti.81. -·~::;;_1 'Rtly, I said confession was inv::.iluntary cir thst t'.:,Js2 cl '."JC u :,-,;::nt.'3 · a und.er Coe.rel~ 011 88 ua.s :;·~. Cl Ull'.1 were Signe · , b ,}· v -~..: v.·~...•. ·::,.. c ...., l.,-: +:v t- 7 -:- ,. - ~:- .. ..; .-.. .1..., !.L To the cor1trs.ry ~ there wo.s

evjJ]ence t>c.t A-!'1 t:c ,:,2l2r·· "G') Arusba end co;J.fided with F;J2 '.)l1. t12 L'.1.a.tt2ro .-u:t2:r that, t.he two of them ::rent to H~ lili and ;)a:i.d t·12 f~ n2 'di tl.iout pro.t:.es .i. t a·cion '· · t-~·rJng or regis · 7 · · yJ any C'):··:·q_n::n1-; · ' · e ffec·l.t.o ··c,.:8.·c Given such fa.cts., it is cl20;:: that tbe al1er;ati'.)n is 8.J.'1 aft.er tl:i.crnght o In t1.at it la.ck,s n::::rits s if failso I have already said tjst section 145 (c) (iii) of Cap 22 pre.scribe p1m~ s~mG_nt... Befr.irc the- 1994 01;1endr:aent to t;:iis• tJ.eeti"ln by .!~cl~ t:0·015 ·Qf '199L~, the ptinishment pres-. ,.."ri--"' 1-,,.._a· ·ti-->,r-r:- , --·-- - ·u·nc.-; o. . 1:. wr1s. n f 1:rYa · · exceed· inn; two thousand ncn,· shil1··1 i1gs_u· •J:he v2 1;in1e·s _as ~-rell as g'.)ods the subjects of the ch2r~2d ofLmce. were 1•1andr:it9ri·ly liabl_E"~ to fur.fe-i t11re o After the '199il- mnendir1.2nt, t)·-2 ::•ii-12 H-cis raised to t1l2 amount not exceed rme million t·;JO l:rn:.1dl.'G :l t;l:;uu,ssnd 1 8110- fiftyo As afore.said, the a:,)pcll8.rrt I s 0ff:i_cGr acted in terms of sect1on 173 (1) of Cap· 27. He· i:n:pos2rJ a fj_n.2· ·of 3:!s., 625 ,000/7. In addi ti .m to t 1~n.t s ::.t-2 ::i:.::,1ered' bj_\:1 to pay r12-~ 0 • venue of Shs. 265<¥9~-1/==., In tb.at 1·the :Pine w}:,ic.h vms payable undeP. sec-tion 1 1-1-5 .(c) (iii) of Cap 27 l'IS a;~:e:;.1i:~ecl 1•nJ.s :Sbs., 1i250

100Q/:-.,.;• i'mposition of a fin2 o.f shr:;. 525~000/,.:_ in bhi~- co.se cannot be said was excGs:3i ve c In my opini.~11 9 t'.12 n;>}?e•~ lla.nt I s officer properly exercised -c:_;2 . f.li:~cr:2-ci ;)11 ~•)tah1ing under tha.t provisiono .~vGn, tb2 a1L1setj_:m t;·,at t:1e quantity of the J~erosene consir.;nment uhich· s1;:-;r!;.:eG all --c:__ :i_s 1,rns not knoi-m is 31.so not support21~ by ,::v:Ldonce. i;:1 t:1at t'·.,e roc::ird saicl thst there WG.rC 50 cans. /:ri. t·H= r::i ;_,c um,'J-t8;1ces 9 it is ·t.,'- 1·1r:, r:· "'1")':,ll ;,r,+ ,·,,, OI"I"i' ci' 2· l 1 (.;)~~1· 'Cl(].l -:-,~,...., 1~1np~1· a P ••i''·"''"'lJ-,1ed '- ,:;:, LJ ·l···1c::i- •···<- V .J .• ,c,. 1 ("~J.-' •;• \.C -• ., - V ,:, • . . • - \~ V '- U ,.; '-' ·. 0. . r270nue of sbsu ·2135i941/,·, bQ..si;'_. ::m tba.t qua.ntity._ Once for purpo1=.;cs ot c· r1vc:nie:,.c~ I rlesire to to.ck°le ·t:.1c seveEth ·e;round ~ before sdr;re,ssirrg t··:e fourth and· .-1~ fifth. In. ti.1<2 s2venth :ro 1.rad ~ t:.-:-,~ a 1::.pelJ.1nt is c:Jmpl.aining -br:at tl1e ·i;ris1. -owgistrate wr 1::-.) J.~, assmi1,2d jur·;silictian on t 1,e -iss 11 E::> of ~..,_,Tr.lent :._ .J.. ,. t:'(J~1;Jth t.-1... .. of •_. r,,c,;·,c 9';? QLl-1 ;.__ 7 1 •- ·.-•4.:... c:-... L:.c• ,.,:,]' '· 011 ,.::,]_y,,-:>--::dy •.1J' .•• ,.:, 0 --"-C• t.._L_, ,i •· , ~ .J. 1....1. As al:r.ecJ.dy seGn, s,~cti-on '1 ?3 ( '1) of ,..;sp 27 .'::.2.s

·,.r2st~..a -conpouncl;·'.!ent powers int:..1 ·the 2.pp2ll.Dnt 's ·:iamc.d 8ffj_cio..1 oa conditi::m that the p2r;.:;cin accun:~a o.f tb2 :)ff,::::.'"!C-2 -~•-'i.!:it3- t::10 said offen.-:::e in l:•:riting. In t2ros '."'f ~1.,..;'':!-cio!1 ,173 (2) of tbat. st~tut.e ~ sm:~;:i order is S:i:c1al cnic1 is i."'.-Jt ,'J s l1 .:- j Get n-.-r: .a1)peal. ~~1at provision .2nacts t~1:·t., I-q_uote :-- .. o:c,·1 c:c mi.,~ 2r thi.s secti':}n theD. :-• appeG:l o.nd ma.y same IDa].IDat' as_a decree or orcer •• 11. ' ( .'lO/... certain prescribed pro- cedures :1acl to be C()mpl:i.0(1 wi-t;h b2f'.)re impositi0n of the penalty. In_ tbe ·first place t'x~y ;::,:.:-cpa:r2c ::.~er~ral forms for that purpose. Tl12· res·9'.)n•:'.·2nt. 1 ,s c,::,:i_v:..::r ;:,i;;Eeo 'I'oRo.·lo form ·No .. 89 w,::lich concerns d0:r,0rip0;i_q.n ~:: g:::wrl::: 1~ep~Y::ited in the W8l'e-house, . in this caee the vebicleo ':::here was also prepared fo:cm Noo Cc58, whi9h is a ·notice of seizureo It preceded the respondent '_s driver's req11est t;o plead to the charg-eo.. Upon a-cc-eptauc,e of h·is request 9 be· \ms· s~rve,1 with a form known as request for settlenient which he· signed" He was also gb,en anothe·r fo~ titled. 1 ::1i?qtlesf7.:tcr:nave'·an. offe~ nee compounded' whiclh according to DW5 7 he also freely anal -:- ·.:_ willingly signed<> It was tb.en ttat the matter wa~f referred·· to the Regional Revenue Officer

for conr_~otmdmento• · Ifr ·that tbe requi.rements of sectio;J '173 ('1) o/ that stB1;ufe ·w,ere; · complied wi th 9 and sine~ t1:1e oro.@r .·of ·comput1ndti1~nt··· unaer ttiis \)rov:i.sion is fi,.1al:~ t~1'2re is b.o doubt tb~t~ tbe learned tria1 Principal Resident MaEi.strate ·acted without jurisdiction In the -premises 9 · this grom::~: too has merits •. Next is tbe fonuth ground. in ··,-r'-iicb i·:·; J_;: 80-:,r.,lained that the trial magistrate err~d ;:_n J,.aw end fa.c-':; u:; :.1olding that on ·tf/L!/200'1, they day orr which the :c·es1_)0-~1':-2ff;.:; 1 s v=::-.:i•~le •:~as 1 seized'j there was _on ·:ooard·•IT,s'as 0 3'>000i080: =-c L?2in 9 t;.1is may be bridged 'with the fifth· gro\.:nd wh.ic r:: alle3e t;~3t t1.1e trial magistrate misdirected berself in la,·J ant i.o :~·::1ct in condemning the appell.ant _to _pay Tshso 3,000,000/== ui·c~1out ·any ji.mtifieation~ -as :to misappr01:;>.ri:0.t:i.011 of tbs sair1 money by the appellant's offj_~ial£., .. Submi ttin? on t½is, tht; Bpps- llant Is C ounse 1 said thet the;r·e was no conclusi ~10. tl)X'OO.f to. the ef.;fect that PW1 ~.~})a~ Tshs., 3,000,000/r.: on toard. th.at v.sbicle at t~e time of s~~1l-'ei Ee adc1ed th~t IW1 did not report to. the ~_)clice nor -:e,o the .cur::toms .tutbori ty over the missing mo □ ey until two (2) we~ks bad elapsed fjom when the moto.r vebicle was rel~ased b-J tiJe a,_)pellanto It was

simi- larly submitted th~t at the NJ decice<'l to escape, he.:::reme- mbered to talte. ti..~ tel~\)bene h8\:idset a tact whj_c!J. 7 it i.s I 11 subtni tted, prcwes that had there· been money on board 9 he could h,we e..s well taken ito _On his part, the. respondent's counsel has submitted t~1at t:1e evidence of' ~u2 eetablish~d that sh.so 3,000 7 000/= was handed to P:!" 1 \ It was further ~ub!ni tted that since no handing over -wa..s done between F.1 o1 and Tlb officials before the motor ve'rticle was forcefully taken a.nd driven away to Holili, they were properly implicated Ls t~1e persons wi10 stol!=) that 1,1oney1 In hold:ini U1at, ·the appell,mt ':Jas li.::,,',le to pay this amount, the trlaJ. courl f"e13.~oned that it was imJ?roper for .the appellant's officials to hav-E: had forcefully taken· the said vehicle 1 further t':lat there was· su_pposed tq be a handiri.?; overo It may sound appealinv,; but in rny view this dlinding ·~ unjustified., I have c~gent reasons f.or ao.ying soo In. the first place, the respondent's driver d~d not sa.~• he told the appellant 9 s officiDls of the presence of shs~ 3~000,000/::: i::i th-"'.t veh:i.cle at the t;ime he talked to them at Holili border poBt soon ·a.Her b.e av::t:i.led himself to them. ,Secondly, the trial court did not thinl,;, of the pos3ibili ty for the said money of having been taken by P:1 ~ 1 hi:ns_elf • What 1.-ia,s

there to preclude him from doinr:; so 1,1:iven that he re:,1e·,1bered to tak0 his t~lephone handset? What was more important to ~b1; was it his telep~o!1e h-'J:1dset or shs. 3,000,000/=? In my opinion, there \t1as no evirl.ence to justify the tri-31 court's findins that there was shs. 3,000 1 000/= .ori board 6:f' that motor vehicle. In .the pro;:iises f the fourth a~1d fifth ~round.is have i:1f,,r~ts e...'l'fi succeed. The eighth ground allege,s that the trial magistrate misdirected herself in law and in fact in awar?-ing sh.so 2,000,000/= ,beinp: gen.eral <lama 0 es without any justification~ Though the responden.t I s advocate sub:11itte.d that there was justification in awardin.; that ar1oun~", I hold a different v.iew .on the basis that as alrea.d•r seen in tbis judg~ent 7 t~e apJ$l}a~t w~s justifie( in seizing that motor v,: i;:i1.c:i,e·, therefore. tt?.:-t c.a,TJage8 were wro □ P-;lY awa.rdedo ·rn coriclusion . . exc~jt for the first ground which I 7· ~ava found for t~e r~spond2nt, t~e appeal has merits and is allm,red _wit;b costso .I .-~g/4/2,Q.Q4. Coram: Bo Mo IV'lIIlilla~ Jit ai:-ipe11ant: Mro Masele for R~ S;?O n d E?nt : Mro Mas(?le (;°Iolcing CCt }w~line Court: Judgtrisnt delivere::i ~:1 cnm_:,t ·ti:lis 30th day of Apri,l, 2001.1. in the ·,)r2r..2nc'. .'Jf trq i:asele, ?or t~e ar,pel lant 1\rho elso helcl br:i.ef for Mro ]{9.-:::a.r~e -learned counsel· for tha. ·res::)onaent o•.