Ngongoseke s/o Mwangalazi v. R. (PC) Crim. App. 166-M-67; 7/6/67; Cross, J.

Ngongoseke s/o Mwangalazi v. R. (PC) Crim. App. 166-M-67; 7/6/67; Cross, J.

Accused was convicted of obtaining money by false pretences. He alleged that he and complainant had agreed that accused would tender two bags of cassava flour, instead of the money that he had obtained from complainant , and that the flour was in fact delivered to complainant in the presence of two witnesses. Accused did not call these witnesses, or request that the magistrate do so. The High Court noted “inconsistencies” in accused ’s version of the matter.

            Held: (1) A magistrate had a clear duty to call defence witnesses only where he makes a “finding that the evidence of the witness (is) essential to a just decision of the case. “ Citing Crim. Proc. Code, s. 151; Kulukana Otim v. R., (1963) E.A. 253. (2) Where no such finding is made, an appellate court should not disturb his decision unless it is satisfied that he was “plainly wrong.” Citing Langan v. Regina (1954) T.L.R. (R)  96. Conviction upheld.