AT
DAR ES SALAAM
(CORAM:
RAMADHANI, C.J.; MUNUO, J.A; And NSEKELA, J.A.)
CRIMINAL
APPEAL NO. 48 OF 2005
BETWEEN
1. NGEKALI MKANDI }
} … APPELLANTS
2. TUMAINI MLELI }
THE
REPUBLIC … RESPONDENT
(An
Appeal from the Decision of the High Court of Tanzania ,
at Dar es Salaam )
(Mlay,
J.)
dated
the 6th day of December, 2004
in
Criminal
Appeal No. 85 of 2004
…….
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
25 April & 4 June, 2008
RAMADHANI, C. J.:
The
appellants, Ngekali Mkandi and Tumaini Mleli, pleaded guilty to a charge of
armed robbery c/ss 285 and 286 of the Penal Code and, so, were convicted. Each was sentenced to serve thirty years in
prison. Their appeal to the High Court was dismissed and hence this second
appeal.
On
15/06/2003 at
Parakayo Area Gang 39, in Kilosa District, at about 23.00 hours one Robert
Mwegoha was going to Morogoro to sell his 38 head of cattle. He was robbed the
animals after he was attacked with bush knives and sticks and had to be taken
to hospital. The trial District Magistrate of Kilosa made the following entry:
Court:
Charge read over and
explained to the accused person to (sic) the language understood by them an
asked to plea (sic) there in Kiswahili.
Mr. Mgomba:
A plea of the accuseds in their own
words:
1st accused it is true
2nd accused it is true
Entered as a plea of guilty to the
charge
Insp.
Said Sijaona narrated what happened and the following entry was made:
Court: - On
being asked as to whether they admit the facts as outlined by the prosecution through
an interpreter not (sic) Mgomba the accused replies this (sic) we have heard
the facts and admit them all. It is true we attached (sic) the grazer and stole
the cows.
As the facts as out
lined by the prosecution and upon their own admission to the correctness I find
them guilty as charged and they are convicted thereof on their own plea of
guilty as to the charge.
In
their first appeal the appellants, among other things, disputed their plea of
guilty and said that they did not follow the proceedings because they did not
understand Kiswahili. The learned State Attorney, Mr. Mapinduzi, pointed out
that there was an interpreter. To that the appellants replied that the
interpreter did not understand Kimasai and that they had been beaten. MLAY, J.,
agreeing with the State Attorney, dismissed the appeal and upheld the District
Magistrate.
Before
us the appellants were in person while the respondent/Republic was represented
by Ms. Eveta Mushi, learned State Attorney, who conceded that the provisions of
section 198(1) of the CPA were not followed as the record does not show that the
interpreter was sworn before performing his task. Ms Mushi submitted that we
should invoke our powers of revision under section 4 of the Appellate
Jurisdiction Act whereby we quash the conviction, set aside the sentence and
order a retrial.
We
agree with the learned State Attorney on the point of the swearing of the
interpreter but in addition the facts, as narrated by the prosecution, leave
much to be desired. For instance, the incident is said to have taken place at
23.00 hours when normally it would be very dark unless there was full
moonlight. One wonders how were the appellants identified and hence arrested.
It was not narrated that the appellants were caught with the stolen animals
though there was an order that “Exhibit P2 38 cows be returned to Godfrey s/o
Adamson”. It is doubtful whether or not there was even a prima facie case.
We
agree with the learned State Attorney that by using our powers of revision we
quash the conviction and set aside the sentence of thirty years. The Republic
may wish to prosecute again the appellants but they should seriously consider the
period of four years and ten months the appellants have been serving the
sentence meted out to them.
DATED
in DAR ES SALAAM, this 28th day
of May, 2008.
A. S. L. RAMADHANI
CHIEF JUSTICE
E. N. MUNUO
JUSTICE OF APPEAL
H. R. NSEKELAJUSTICE OF APPEAL
I
certify that this is a true copy of the original.
(S.A.N. WAMBURA)
REGISTRAR
View other posts for your benefit...
0 Comments
PLACE YOUR COMMENT HERE
WARNING: DO NOT USE ABUSIVE LANGUAGE BECAUSE IT IS AGAINST THE LAW.
THE COMMENTS OF OUR READERS IS NOT OUR RESPONSIBILITY.