Ad Code

Recent Posts

6/recent/ticker-posts

Patrick s/o Isango v. R., Crim. App. 754-D-67, 8/11/67, Georges C. J.



Patrick s/o Isango v. R., Crim. App. 754-D-67, 8/11/67, Georges C. J.

Accused, a T. A. N. U. ten house cell leader, was convicted of corrupt transaction [Prevention of Corruption Ordinance. Cap. 400, s. 3(1).] The principal evidence against him was that of the complainant who testified that he paid

Accused Shs. 100/- as a reward for forbearing to arrest complainant for cattle theft. In his judgment, the trial magistrate referred to “ a Presidential Order that cattle thieves be detained, even those who committed offences long ago.”

            Held: (1) Section 3(1) deals with a corrupt transaction by an agent “in relation to his principal’s affairs or business ….” A ten house leader is a party rather than a governmental official. [Citing Article 14 A of the constitution of T. A. N. U. as set out as a schedule to the Intern Constitution of Tanzania, Act No. 43 of 1965]. At law he has no powers or duties in relation to arrests other than those possessed by all citizens. Therefore, this transaction was not in relation to his principle’s affairs and did not come within the terms of section 3(1). (2) With regard to the reference to the Presidential Order, a judge must base his findings on evidence led in Court, not on what may be known as common knowledge, unless they are facts of which judicial notice may be taken. (3) Had the charge been proper, the complainant would be an accomplice in the offence and the trial magistrate would have had to deal with the question of corroboration of his testimony.

  

Post a Comment

0 Comments