Jumanne @ Alli s/o Hamisi v. R., Crim. App. 239-M-67; -/7/67; Cross, j.

Jumanne @ Alli s/o Hamisi v. R., Crim. App. 239-M-67; -/7/67; Cross, j.

Accused were convicted of theft. Indispensable to the prosecution case was the testimony of the Prosecuting Officer, who also did much of the investigation before the case came to trial.

            Held: The High Court cited Gamalieri Mubito v. R. (1961) E.A.C.A. 244, where it was stated that, “…….. in a case where an investigating officer conducted the prosecution himself or was present while the prosecution witnesses gave their evidence and then entered the witness box and supplemented their testimony,” a failure of justice may well have been occasioned. In the present case the convictions were quashed because there was lacking that appearance of fairness and impartiality which should characterize the administration of the criminal law. In view of the importance of the evidence or prosecuting Officer, the Court could not be sure that there was no failure of justice.