1981024 TZHC Dar es Salaam

/ .( IN THE HIGH COURT OF T.ANZilNI.A &LJ)AR Ef- S.ALAAM MISCELLANEOUS CRIMIN AL CAUSE NO. 64 OF 1980 In the matter of an application for bail pending appeal and 1n the matter of CriminaJ Case No.630 of 1980 m the District Court of Ilala District, at Kisutu TITUS TEIKW.A Vs REPUBLIC RULrnG MAPTG-AN" T - 1rh.iA is an applicatiqn b,y Titus Teik .n1a 1 for an order that he be releRsed on bail pe.r<"ling the hearing and disposal of his appeal to the High Cour1 against the deci- sion of the dist:rict court at Kisutu. The r}pelication is brought u..r1der the provision of section 321 C ."P.C. fhe appeal is against his conviction c . two counts which charged i lm~ respectively, w:tL being in po, ;ession of property suspected to have been stolen or unlawfully ~cquired contrary to section 312{1) ( a) of the Pen8.l Code and cor:::• lpt transaction with an agent cont:ca>y to section 3(2) of the Prc\ention of Corruption .Act, 1971. Th•~ question here is whether~ th;1 application has any merito Coi..lllsel for the applicant thinks to but counsel for the Republic told·s the contrary view, on the hti.sis that the appeal does not hold any hopec The firf~ count alleged that the applicant was spotted. carrying 580 1-airs of buckles, and the second c..-.; mt. alleged that he gave a suin of s.hselOO/- to Constable Rashidi .1s an mducement to the const1.ble forbearLr-1.g from bringing him to ·book for the possession of the buckles. Two main grounds are 1.rged fo:r this application~ The first ground is that the trial ;:: agistrate overlooked :::ertain serious discrepancies in the p·: osect!J.t.10.11 case with regard to the number of buckles which the ac ~!.lsed is said to have por-rnessed on that occasion, and with rega: l to the deno- m.inations of the currency notes which he is said i. ,-. have given the constable as a bribeo The other ground is tha-'; the magistrate ; d6.d not d.C1•1quat9ly consider the defence put forwarc'. by the appli- cant, whj: r. •:v::>.s to the effect that the buckles had been forcibly 2/ 0 C <t • 0 2 planted on him by the constable, Reading the judgment of the learned magistrate, I see that the magistrate dismissed the conflicts alluded to by I the applicant as minor and such that did not detract from the basic credence of the prosecution case. As regards the contention that the applicant had been maliciously made to carry the buckles at the point of a gun, the magistrate rejected it, albeit in a few words, as follows: " I believe the witnesses. I do not believe the accused's story of personal grudges between himself and Constable Rf:.shi-ii, If this was the case then he would have cross-examined him about the grudges 0 • Now bail pending appeal is an unusual course and can only·be granted for exceptional and unusual reasons, one of which is that the prospects of the appeal's success should be overwhelming. That is a well known princir:.e which has held sway for man_y years and I should be excusGd for not citing any authorities, and to be sure, there are in ttbundance, With respect, I am far from being persuaded that this is Juch a case, I would say, without venturing to prejudge the appeou. and with no inte~ ntion to discourage the applicant f,rom perE"4ing it, that, at first glance, the prospects of the appeal's success do not look ·i all that shins • .Accordir..gly, the application is refused. Pronounced before the advocates, ~rr-B rvfo-i _;_;:.:--:- At· Dar es Salaam ( D. P .M.APIG.ANO) 4th Februarv,1981, JUDGE.