Mohamedi v. R. Crim. App. 112-Dodoma-71; 15/1/72; Mnzavas, J.

 

Mohamedi v. R. Crim. App. 112-Dodoma-71; 15/1/72; Mnzavas, J.

The appellant was on his own plea of guilty convicted of three counts of stealing by agent and sentenced to 6 months 2 months and 2 months on counts one, two and three respectively. The sentences were ordered to run consecutively making an aggregate of 10 months imprisonment. This was an appeal against the district magistrate’s order that the three sentences were to run consecutively. It was argued that the circumstances of the case were similar to those in Chikondumu vs. R. (1967) H.C.D. 403. The ratio decide ding of this decision is that the court found the accused to be a first were relatively small and acting on these mitigating facts Biron, J. held that there was no justification for ordering the sentences to run consecutively.

            Held: (1) The accused was first offender as was the case in Chikondamu v. R. but unlike Chikondum’s case where the amount involved was described as small “in the present case the accused stole a total of Shs. 2133/30 an amount which cannot reasonably be described as small  

The facts on the present case seem to be in all fours with the case of Joseph Kashamakula vs. R. (1970) H.C.D. 201 (where) in revising the consecutive order to a concurrent on Hamlyn J. said that all …. These offences were part and parcel of a single plan of campaign, in such case they should all be concurrent.” (2) “It would also appear from the facts that the three offences were merely part of a single plan by the accused to defraud his fellow villagers. The offences have been committed at the same time and in the same single plan to defraud the villagers and as such the sentences should have been ordered to run concurrently and not consecutively.” (3) “I therefore set aside all the sentences imposed on the appellant and substitute in their place sentences of 10 months imprisonment on each of the three counts and direct that the sentences be served concurrently. The end result is that this appeal save the above order fails in its entirely.”