Republic vs Mabula S/O Magana [1984] TZHC 19 (9 June 1984)


Katiti, J.: Mabula s/o Magana was charged with Cattle Theft c/s 268 of the Penal Code with two  B others, and was finally found guilty and convicted as charged, and sentenced to five years imprisonment under section 5(c) of the Minimum Sentences Act 1972.  The Second and Third accused persons were acquitted.  Following on heels was a compensation order that runs as  C follows:-
   Order:Accused should pay Shs.2,000/= compensation to the complainant (P.W.1) or distress in default. D
What has attracted our attention is the recovery aspect of the compensation ordered, as the sentence is according to law and a mandatory one.  What is interesting is compensation order that is to the effect that distress be levied in default of payment of the said compensation.  I have only to  E recall that cattle theft is an offence scheduled under the Minimum Sentences Act 1972.  And where under the same Minimum Sentences Act 1972 a trial court orders payment of compensation where circumstances so dictate, it has so to do under the provisions of section 7(1) of the Minimum Sentences Act 1972.  The recovery of compensation as ordered under Section 7(1) of the Minimum  F Sentences Act 1972 is not by distress in default, but by presenting, or filing an authenticated copy of the compensation order, in the District Court, having jurisdiction over the area, for execution of the same in the same or like manner as if it were a decree passed by such Court under the provisions  G of Civil Procedure Code 1966.  It is therefore very clear that the compensation order that distress be levied in default of payment was bad in law.  Accordingly the default distress aspect of the order is hereby set aside. H
Order accordingly.


▲ To the top