19710609 TZCA Dar es Salaam2

L—f IN THE aIGE COUliT 0? TANZANIA

AT MR NZ SALAAM Criminal Appeal No. 225 of 1971 Original CimI.na1 Case No. 499 of 1971 of the District Court of Dar as $alawu District at Dar es Salsam Before: J. K. Bwahama, Esc., esidentNagiBtrate ZALU1 JUNA ..... . 010 1 4 •..... .....•• •5• •,. ••.•.. APPNLLANT versus TRN RNPTBLIC .s....•...•, .. . . .••. ...... CHARGEs Careless driving on the public road. c/se 47(i)(a) And 70 of the Traffic Ordinance, Cap. 168,

UDNT PATBL AG. J. - The appellant was convicted, of careless driving on public road before the District Court of Bar as Salman. The appellant was at all material times a driver employed by the Bar an Salaam ?otor Transport Company (D.N.T.). It was alleged and the appellant pleaded guilt.., that he did drive a bus carelessly and as a resrilt knocked against a stationary vehicle which was damaged. Portuniatoi.y no one was injured. The trial magistrate imposed a fine of Sbs.4500/ or six months' imprisonment in default. 1r. Versi for the appellant submitted that the trial magistrate in passing the sentence conSidered matters which were not directly relevant to the offenOe arid in fact they were highly prejudioial to the appellant# He submitted that the fine imposed is out of proportion to the salary earned by the appellant as .a d.rver, which is Sha..427/- per months Re submittea that the trial magistrate failed to enttire intothe earning of the appellant while imposing a firie of .Sbs.l,0Q/-. Eo said the fine is manifestly exoessive. The learned State Attorney agreed with the submissions made by the appellant's counsel and. conceded that the trial .mag1a4rate did in fact oonideed matterS not directly relevant to the offence when passing the sentence. The State Attorney went on to say that the accident wasa result of inefficient brealting system as per Vehicle Inspector s report,

and because of this the appellant could not control the vehicle and collided with the stationary vehicle* However f the State Attorney went on to say that 'the maximum fine for such offence being 8bs.5,000/- a fine of She.. 1,500/- imposed by the trial magistrate in this case is not exoesivo, I have carefully onsidered the judgment of the trial magistrate and it is abundantly clear that the trial magistrate imposed a fine of Shs.1,0O/ because of what he considered the general bad driving and. report about D..T. drivers. Theee were his own impressions and his own opiriion which was never proved or brought to the nt ice of the court. In this the trial magistrate erred. The matters he considered are indeed highly prejudicial to the appellant and not at all relevant for passing .• .2 2.. the entenoe. With due respect to the learned State Attorney, the fine of Sh.l,5O0/- is indeed exceseive. This would mean the appellant is paying mpre than three times his monthly salary as fine. Primarily, the accident óocnrred due to inefficient breaking system vbich is the responsibility of his employer, that is D..% aompany, to check and Ioep it up-to-date. In view of this I find that the sentanos of 1;hs.1,500/- is manifestly excessive and t reduce Shs.500/-. As I am told that the fine has been paid by the appellant's employer s I hereby order that the amount in excess to the fine of hs.5 00/- be refunded to the appellant. Delivered ii Cburt at Dar as 3al&n thi.s 9th day of June, 1971. ( B. PATEL) AO.JUDOE