R. v. Suna Crim. Rev. 50-M-70; 20/4/71; Mnzavas Ag. J.

R. v. Suna Crim. Rev. 50-M-70; 20/4/71; Mnzavas Ag. J.

The accused was charged with unlawful possession uncut diamonds c/s 3(1) of Cap. 129 of the Laws, convicted, and sentenced to a fine of Shs. 300/- or 3 months imprisonment. The learned district magistrate neither wrote a judgment nor did he register a conviction before he imposed sentence. The issue was whether these irregularities were fatal to the proceedings.

Held: (1) “Every judgment should state the facts of he case establishing each fact by reference to the particular evidence by which it is supported; and it should give sufficiently and plainly the reasons which justify the finding.” (citing s. 171 Criminal Procedure code, AMIRALI ISMAIL V. R. 1 T. L. R. 370, REX v. LULAKOMBA 3 E. A. C. A. 43 and WILLIAM MSAKA             v. R. [1968] H. C. D. 216) ‘In all the above quoted decisions, the trial court’s findings were set aside on appeal not because the trial magistrates did not writ judgments but because of the inadequacy of their judgments. In the present case it is more than inadequacy of judgment. The trial magistrate did not bother to write even a line of judgment. This being the position and the fact that there was no conviction registered, it is impossible to tell how the trial magistrate came to the conclusion that the accused should be fined Shs. 300/- or 3 months imprisonment.” (2) “Failure to write a judgment is clearly an incurable irregularity.” (3) In ordering a retrial all the circumstances must be considered and each case must depend on its own facts, since there was a lapse of about one year since this case was decided and the diamonds in issue have been confiscated by Government and as it may be impossible to find the accused, it would be a waste of time to order a retrial. (4) Sentence set aside; Accused to be refunded his Shs. 300/-