Bakari Manyike v. R. Crim App. 348-M-71; 20/8/71; El – Kindy, J.

Bakari Manyike v. R. Crim App. 348-M-71; 20/8/71; El – Kindy, J.

The applicant was convicted of misconduct occasioning loss to the property of his employer c/s 284A of the Penal Code as amended by Act No. 1 of 1970. The applicant appealed and this was an application for bail pending the determination of hi appeal. The applicant was involved in an accident while driving a Government Land Rover. The applicant was not the driver assigned to the land Rover and there was evidence that before starting on his journey he had bought two bottles of beer. The advocate for the applicant argued that there were overwhelming chances that the appeal would succeed since (1) the alleged regulations prohibiting persons such as the applicant from driving Government vehicles were not produced in court and therefore it was not proved that the applicant was guilty of contravening the section; and (2) there was a likelihood that the sentence of 12 months imprisonment would be reduced.

            Held: (1) “It is well established that when there was overwhelming chance of the appeal succeeding, bail would be granted (see Hassanali Maiji v. R. 1968 H. C. D. No. 174 and Attilico Mosca v. R. Msc. Cr. C. 12 1968). In this case the regulations were not produced in court in evidence,

as it should have been but there was the evidence of the Area Secretary on the matter. Whether in fact the evidence of the Area Secretary alone, without the production of the regulations would be enough to sustain or obtain a conviction is a matter of serious argument. In my view, the matter is so balanced that it is difficult to say from a mere reading of the judgment of the learned resident magistrate that the chances of success are over whelming.” (2) “The second point taken appears to be a novel one, and I express no opinion on the matter, especially when it is a matter of argument whether the sentence of 12 months on the facts and circumstances of this case was so excessive that an appellate court would be inclined to reduce it if the conviction is upheld.” (3) The application was dismissed.