ABSOLOMON MWACHELEJI v REPUBLIC 1985 TLR 189 (HC)

ABSOLOMON MWACHELEJI v REPUBLIC 1985 TLR 189 (HC)

Court High Court of Tanzania - Tanga

Judge Sisya J

March 5, 1984

(PC) CRIMINAL APPEAL 3 OF 1981

Flynote

Criminal Practice and Procedure - Compensation in criminal trials - Compensation B

ordered in the absence of any criminal liability - Whether the order can stand.

-Headnote

The appellant was charged with setting fire to crops contrary to s.321(a) of the Penal

C Code. The Primary Court convicted him and sentenced him to pay a fine. It also

ordered him to pay compensation. On appeal to the District Court, the conviction

was quashed and the sentence was set aside; but the order to pay compensation was

upheld. He appealed to the High Court. D

Held: After the appellant was absolved of criminal liability, the compensation order

against him remained with no basis and it could not stand.

Appeal allowed. E

No cases referred to.

Judgment

Sisya, J: This is a second appeal and it is against the order of F compensation only.

The appellant was charged with the offence of setting fire to crops and growing plants

c/s 321 (a) of the Penal Code. After a full trial and conviction he was sentenced by

the Maramba Primary Court of Muheza District to pay a fine of shs.400/= or in default

of payment thereof to go to jail for three months. He was also ordered to pay shs.

600/= compensation to the complainant. G

Aggrieved he appealed against conviction, sentence and order of compensation to the

District Court. On first appeal the District Court quashed the conviction and set aside

the sentence but the first appellate court upheld the order of compensation. In his

memorandum of appeal the appellant avers that the learned District Magistrate on

first H appeal erred in law in upholding the order of compensation. This is a point

of law. It is not clear under what provision of the law the learned District Magistrate

ordered the compensation after he had found that the appellant was not guilty of the

offence charged. To the best of my knowledge the only relevant provisions of the law

under which the I learned District Magistrate could have acted are section 31 of the

Penal Code and section

1985 TLR p190

176 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Both these provisions, however, come into play

A only when a person has been convicted of an offence. Since the appellant was not

convicted of an offence, or rather he had been absolved of criminal liability, I cannot

see how this order of compensation can stand. The same is hereby, therefore,

quashed and set aside. If the appellant has already paid the compensation then the

same should now B be refunded to him. I may mention in passing that the way is

left open to the complainant, if he so wishes, to proceed by way of a civil suit against

the appellant. All in all this appeal succeeds and it is hereby allowed.

C Appeal allowed

1985 TLR p190

D