Republic v Eliphas Jacob 1984 TLR 345 (HC)

REPUBLIC v ELIPHAS JACOB 1984 TLR 345 (HC)

Court High Court of Tanzania - Dodoma

Judge Maina J

April 21, 1983

C CRIMINAL REVISION 4 OF 1983

Flynote

Transport Licensing Act, 1973 - Charge under s. 10(1)(a) -Charge does not state whether goods carried were for D hire or in connection with accused's business - Whether offence disclosed.

-Headnote

The accused was convicted, on his own plea of guilty, of using a motor vehicle to carry goods in E connection with business. The charge was laid under s.10(1)(a) of the Transport Licensing Act, 1973. The facts as stated by the prosecution and which the accused admitted did not indicate whether the goods were for hire or in connection with the accused's business.

Held: In order to convict a person under s.10(1) of the Transport Licensing Act, 1973 it must be established that the goods were for hire or reward.

Case Information

Conviction quashed.

No case referred to.

[zJDz]Judgment

Maina, J.: The accused was convicted, on his own plea of guilty, of using a motor vehicle to carry goods H in connection with business. He was conditionally discharged, under S.38 of the Penal Code, for a period of six months.

After the charge was read over to him, the accused stated "It is true". The facts as stated by the prosecution and which the accused admitted were these. On 17.4.82 the accused was driving an Isuzu I tipper and he was stopped by a Police Constable who found that the accused was "carrying goods without TLB licence." There is no indication anywhere in those facts what those goods were and whether they were in connection with the A accused's business, or whether they were for hire. The charge against the accused was laid under Section 10(1)(a) of the Transport Licensing Act, No.1 of 1973 which states that:

Subject to the provisions of Sub-Section (6) no person shall, except under or in accordance with the terms of a licence -

(a) use a goods vehicle or a public service vehicle for the carriage of goods for hire or reward or for or in connection C with any trade or business carried on by him.

Now, the facts as stated by the prosecutor did not show whether the goods carried by the accused were for "hire or reward" or whether they were "in connection with business carried on by him". The fact that D accused had no licence is not enough to convict. All that the facts showed were that the accused carried goods in the vehicle.

That was not enough to convict him under section 10(1) of the Transport Licensing Act, 1973. The facts should have gone further and establish whether the goods were for hire or reward or E whether they were in any way connected with the accused's business. Since this was not disclosed, the facts were not enough to establish the offence charged.

For these reasons, the conviction is quashed and the order of conditional discharge is set aside.

Conviction quashed.

1984 TLR p346

G