Iddi Migila & Mussa Mnae v. R. Crim. App. 329 & 285-D-71; -/10/71; Mwakasendo Ag. J.

 Iddi Migila & Mussa Mnae v. R. Crim. App. 329 & 285-D-71; -/10/71; Mwakasendo Ag. J.

The appellants were jointly charged with stealing by a person employed in the public service c/ss 265 and 270 of the Penal Code. Both appellants were employed at Ngerengere Farm, Morogoro, and a wholly owned subsidiary of the National Agricultural Corporation. Admitted in evidence at the trial, was an alleged oral confession by the first appellant and a confession by the second appellant implicating the first appellant.

Held: (1) “I would find it hard to accept these accounts [of the prosecution witnesses] as amounting to a confession …….. The witnesses are so hazy and their accounts of the matter so fuzzed up that it is impossible to know what exactly took place ………. I think it would be dangerous to put any reliance on this alleged confession and for these reasons I would hold that his alleged confession should have been completely disregarded by the Magistrate.” (2) “Any confession made by 2^nd appellant implicating 1^st appellant can only be taken into consideration against the maker of it, i. e. 2^nd appellant. I am thus satisfied that the learned magistrate erred in finding that the 1^st appellant was also implicated.” (3) “There is no evidence to indicate that this known parastatal organization the (The National Agriculture Corporation) is a scheduled organization under the Minimum Sentences Act 1963 ………… none of the public institutions commonly known as parastatals is a scheduled organisation in terms of the Minimum Sentence act 1963.” [Editor’s note: the Evidence Act 1967 has since been amended by Act No. 26 of 1971 to permit confessions by accused persons to be taken into consideration against co-accused].