Professional Documents
Culture Documents
AT ZANZIBAR
(CORAM:
ABDUL-KARIM HAJI
APPELLANT
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS
MROSO, J.A.;
"Court:
(1)
(2)
(3)
"4.
zisizo
sahihi
za
kuwa
Wadai
jambo ambalo
the police the charge was withdrawn. The appellant in his written
statement of defence denied all those allegations.
At the trial two of the framed issues are pertinent. Issue No. 1
as framed read -
by
any
evidence
from
It is also important to
at
Mlandege
and
stole
Tshs.
In my
The appellant has filed five grounds of appeal and since they
are not very lengthy, we have taken the liberty to quote them in full.
They read as follows:-
1.
respondents
without
the
required
3.
4.
5.
reported to the police that the appellants broke into his shop and
stole money from it. There was also no credible evidence that the
criminal case in the District Court was withdrawn under Section 81
(a) of Cap. 14 because the appellant failed or refused to cooperate
with the police who were investigating the offence. Therefore, the
findings of fact by the Judge on issues (1) and (3) as indicated above
were unfounded.
10
informed him that the appellant had reported to the police that he
(the first respondent) and others stole the money from the shop. He
also said in his evidence that on a later date, after he had been
\charged in court, the prosecution withdrew the case because it had
dragged on for a long time and that the appellant was not
cooperating with the police to ensure that investigations were
completed.
11
are being made to believe that each time either of the respondents
was being arrested, the appellant would be found talking to a cell
phone!
That was all the substantive evidence which was given with a
view to proving the case for the respondents and against the
appellant.
For his part the appellant said in his evidence that after he
found out that money had been stolen from his shop he reported to
the police and took his watchman to the police station. The police
also recorded his statement and he did not tell the police he
12
suspected the respondents. On another day the police asked him for
transport as they had arrested suspects.
vehicle to his driver who drove away with the policemen. After the
\suspects had been arrested he went to the police station to make a
follow-up and the police told him they would call him when they
needed him. They never called him thereafter and he did not even
know that the police had charged the respondents in court. He did
not help the police in their investigation of the case against the
respondents. He did not know the person who gave the names of
the respondents to the police and he was not present when the
police arrested the respondents nor was he talking to a cell phone at
the time of their arrest.
13
14
help the police to marshall relevant evidence and they gave up the
\attempt to prosecute the respondents.
15
J.A. MROSO
JUSTICE OF APPEAL
H.R. NSEKELA
JUSTICE OF APPEAL
J.H. MSOFFE
JUSTICE OF APPEAL
I certify that this is a true copy of the original.
( S.M. RUMANYIKA )
DEPUTY REGISTRAR
^