19881028 TZHC Dar es Salaam3

.,. IN T.:.IE IIIGH COURT OF TANZt.NIA i~T DAR ES S.ALl. .1\.i'i APFELLI. .TE JL'II.ISDICTION IIIGII COURT CRii"lIHl:.L LFPIJi.L NO. 89 OF 1988 ~ ( Ori[s'i11n1 Crioincl Co.so Noq281 of 1987 of the District Court of Ilalu District o:~ Sokoino Drive) WILBBROAD i\JC(ThTl~Jl.Y o o o -6, o o O o 6 o o o u o o c, t- o o & o O O .> O ~ a o ti " " o c, o o ~ c ., • e aAP~IJ.J\JT ( Orig:i.110J. MClliloci) · versus TJ.IE lJl·TJIJ':"5]) REPUBLIC o • ·o o o o o 6 b '1 "' ~ c., -:i ~ :i o 4 o o o o ~ o e <J " ,, o o o t, c o o o o c, o H.ESPONDEI::T ( Origi.11111 Prosecutor) JUDGMEIT.•JT BlillATI 2 J". This is rui. appenl. aea,il1St tho. jud@nont and sentenoo of tho District Court.., Tho poti tion ·o:f ap~x~al is long and verbose,. But there is one point canvased in this app0c1l which· iG cruc1cl in this appecl. It relates to the fe..ct tl1c.t the appellant w'..10 was t].1e accunml person in the trial court was not sun.':lonccl to court to stm'ld his trir.L Instead 0110 of his ooployoos was entorocl in tho proceedings in the lower court as the accused.. Thio in oven i:ioro n,pparent when you look at the clofcnce case where one Joseph 11'.tponcla is recorded as DWle Fro1J the procoodiJ.1.,30 of the District Court mid fro□ the subii.ssion of tllc . appel12.11t hir,1Self it is quite elem~ th0,t tb.c appellmt was never in court to stand trial and t~:is wo..s at no fault of his own., I do not ~mow vrJi1:~t the len.rned trial Mn.;5ist:mte hac:. i i i nirul in proceGding with the tricl in the a,bsonce of tho accused but at the snnc tine recorcling t'..1.:'.J tho G.cc-w:ioc3. ims p1. cscnt. 0 My [;t.1.ess is thii.t tll.e 102.rnG(l l'Tagi:::t"T0,tc nu.st have'..'.::(tG: bean co11.:f'u.:3ecl and he thou.cht tlmt the employee of the 0,ppcll2,nt WM the appellant hiraoclf' • Bo that n.s i-[; r.1ay j I do not find enough: .na,tcrial on which to lcy the blnne Oil a...yone involved L1 this 02,se-~ l3u:c tho f,,.at still rcnairnJ that the t:ricl. wc..s conducted in the 2-bnence of , the accused.., As such thorG Wc',,S o.n irre&,ulari ty· which in rzy view is fo:k:.l. to the proceedings.. It is a well os·i;2.blished prncUoe tlmt rinJ. of n.n oocused person rrru.st be conductccl in hio · prooence except uho:rc his o:tt011!l~c.:.:.i.Ce hu.S been dispensed with• There is nothing on record to show that the attend...·:.nce of tho appellw1t was dispensed with in this case, nor is there . evidence tha:t the appclln;nt h2,d clocicled to o.bsent hii-:iself'. from tho ·tricl .. Because t:!.1e t--rial was conducted in the. absence of tho appellru1t, ho 112!.1 no opportu..ni ty to sny n.nything in <lcfence to tho charge,~ He was t.herofo::.~o prejudiced in 11:ts riGht of defence,, 2 I thoreforo ho1c1 t]1a:t tb.e proooed:i.n[,--c in tho District Court are j__11mJ.:rnhJ,v def'ectivo rum I declare ·bhen nuJ.1 nnd void. The smo m~e qun.sl10d and sentence so-'G Miele. Any fine pa.id ·i::,y tho a.ppollant should l)c .refunded to i1ir:l fortlnri th, T1.,J.c Republic ic o.t liberty to proceed c.,.:::;cinst the _2.ppella.nt afresh if it so wishes • .Q_s)_t£:i g Ju.dc,nent deliverec1 in oou.rt.o i~ppcllru1t present ancl Miss Darn.houolra :for JG!1e Republic a.lGo present., JUDGE M/10/1988~