Tobias s/o Mtondi v. R. Crim. App. 601-M-71; 19/4/72; El-Kindy, J.

 

Tobias s/o Mtondi v. R. Crim. App. 601-M-71; 19/4/72; El-Kindy, J.

The appellant was convicted of unlawful wounding contrary to Section 228 (1) of the Penal Code Cap. 16, and sentenced to imprisonment for 12 months. The judgment of the trial court reads as follows: - “Judgment: Accused is charged for unlawful

Wounding c/s 228 (1) P.C. Evidence has been given in presence and hearing of accused. Accused has in no way raised any dispute in his defence over the charge against him. I find prosecution case proved beyond all doubts of reason. I find accused guilty, and convict him of the offence as charged.” The State Attorney argued that there was failure to comply with section 171(1) of the C.P.C., Cap. 20, requiring a reasoned judgment, but he submitted that there was adequate evidence on which this Court could deal with the appeal on its merits and in his view the appeal has not merit whatsoever.

            Held: (1) “The Court of Appeal for Eastern Africa has on several occasions in cases of varying facts, dealt with the problem such as the one in hand. The view it has held, and that view is binding on this Court in the light of its decision in the case of Kagoye s/o Bundala v. R. (1959) E.A. 900, is that such noncompliance is not necessarily fatal to the conviction if there is sufficient material on which the appeal can be dealt with on its merits (see the case supra and Willy John v. Reginam, (1956) 23A.C.A. 509, Desiderio Kawunya v. Reginam, (1953) 20 E.A.C.A. 281). I agree that the approach is in keeping with common sense. I see no reason for such defect to be fatal if there is adequate evidence on record to enable the appellate court to deal with the appeal on its merits having regard to the duties of the appellate court, as it has been established in the cases of Pandya v. R. (1957) E.A p. 336 and David Shisia Okene v. R. Cr. App. No. 72 of 1971 (unreported?) With due  respect, I agree with the learned State Attorney that the judgment of the trial court I the appeal in hand is too brief to be said to have complied with the requirements of Section 171 (1) of C.P.C. Cap. 20. Apart from generalization, there was no reference to the evidence led, the issues involved, and the findings on them. However, the evidence before me is enough to warrant this appeal to be dealt wit on its merit.” (2) The court proceeded to review he evidence and held that the magistrate would still have come to the same conclusion had he complied with s. 171(1), C.P.C. Appeal dismissed.