N

. .... :•: ; •. :; • V. V••VV V •VVVV V .n1 T:ui Ei: Cb diC OF LiZJ]L . .- V •V • T BY ,, •. V . ' • ,. r* V V JUiS)ICTIOI (by V1 e!try) V V • • 41 ,CU..198O • ,i V V:V ' . :V OiIG1N CJ1 'j C 4O 29 O 1979 VCJj:1 p. DISVV2:iM31i A.! V.V: V : V : V• BefQrev I K Btoyurga, icsident Lai - rate U THOBIAS BiIUNO SICOND 1üLLNT •V - r : V • • VV V V VliJS ; . - V • • 'VVVV • V, ' V• T1UVflEUJL.0 ......... CHG 1, 11, 21 ' Consipir-cy t defraud c/.3Ot df C V • V VV • 2,V512:i5 V • V• •(V; VV;ViVV:. V V • • •V 22, 25 -. Laking dac. nt 11thQu 11dil.1 V V' V .V V V • •V V V:! V'; .V V.VV V.,VV / 3464) Jr 3, 6, 1o, 17, 23,24 - Friudulent fJ.ic. of the I n&iCcio V 4 I ( I 5 15, 25 - Ii ii - f&c' cien 33(a) - and 337 of tht. . ial Co4 8s 1.8 r 2'6 Utcriri faI Oco.ñic1J i/342 and 3-7 of '- ,e I-ei . CodVe 1ç3; lZ Pori y 'a1e '3qL3. 3l7IOZ I.C. ic, 2Q y c/s . 3, 33 ic31.70pfC.1 113 3 II iV. :i' r j-i / 1 aLs r c/c 302 0± tn 3 o1 Codc V I 1) LI J;f A The app1ant Vas charged. jo±n].v wtth two o riisi he s td'ecoid accused. lis c.cacused were 'si Ithuan 1-t tcbbed) then akstorekeeper at the ivaerea Tcchiueal Sthodl, Rianda, 'rnd (rd. tccued) a bws m a:n ±ri Mbeya tiwn It wts t oscc ac htt the dpp41&Lt, 1who was an accounts clerir at e chooJ., cohpiiva with }is co-ccused Ao. ôefrd th 4gereza. ThLt± he rparei I 0 'c -quiihg th third acctts tsupp]y tber t4 th. sQoL OY s4enth of L O the third acøtsed

próêhbed a I'J. r' -t. sth. Ol 34, OU/ ibh he as P'&dr Whoteak . no tibblei were in f cd &o 1 Pipe114nt I an3!thO *-,33 two i cn *C rioo - .3 Ii 31 1 IV (2) • ax.ie sevraly in counts 6, 7, 10, 16, 17 and 20 of fraudulent accounting and forgery; jointly with the..first accused in cotirlts 2, 12 0 22 of fraudulent accounting and Iorgery; jointly .wih the third accused in cdunts 5, 15 and 25 of making false docuents. and jointly alithree in counts 1, 9 9 11, 18, 19, 21..and. 27 for conspiracj, procuring false documents uttering and finally in count 28 of obtaining money Shs.34,600/ by false pYetenes. In his defence the appellant argued that he piepared.theL,P.Oa in question on the orders of the ptorek?eper,,. the first aceised, .who.was responsb1e, for purchasi%r goads on behalf of the. Principal of. the school. Likease he processed the paynents when tne LID were brought with invoices. That. the first accused had endorsed the certifiontes on theL.P.Os that the g'oods had. bcen ieceived in good condition. Under such a situation he had nothing to do but to pay. In short, he was acting bong fid.e and had no knowledge of the fraud if there was any The trial magimte d.iamiased, the defetice an convicted. him as charged 11e septonced hith t various concurrent jail 'tetms, the hihe.t being five yars in count 2& Hence this appeal J. The trial makgistrate . waa l sitisfied that the goods

illeged to have beh %bought on LPOs 841053, 841055 and 76727 were ne'ter delivezed to thc ohoo]. I sip of the vier that on the cideice the nagitrate was jutified. ThL ct 1-iar issue before th.. coiu.t vas ih tiler the appellantwas implicat€cl in the fraud. To this -end the rocecntiqi produccd an extra judicial confession bv Alhe ira -ic'ieu In it he said ilL had supplied the choc1 with tiLibLi vaued Shs6OU/=, ien h i.rt to ieceive payment the ap11art g ye hiri to iq t JJfl )LS ien he enquired about this ecLsv alLunt tl a 1 pl1n told Iuin that other • . . .. 1 . • mohey wa for tner cIaiL.at a hia sup1ied d. and other items to the sohool All tnt he'(3r1 ausd) is reqt i_cd to do w tocash the heque, take his aa1 .tun tnL bdan She 28,000/ to the appe11ant This h i I. r viun --afehinL zoya (P.li), an inspector of i K-in -ir I - He il tho apallt and. the thiru accuo er. a an / nted to cash two cheques, one ts t ut ir h l2,O0C/,'ad the oer for Shs 12,000/J t n - -1_ UL 3rd. o.oci1d told the witness t t tij n rc I w satisfied - the aIel1nt -. intres t t } ci .. 3rd. accused. r T /or'i C o was LnuL v t c 3'I accused I th+ tlu c I a appe11ants 1 C tha+ i • s ..ct na _t.flC • i_ J t ,;• £ s rightly cb ictC ' ' .+ • r ii ii S enr+: . • I • ....... • I.