Ibrahim Loya vs Republic [1991] TZHC 26 (21 October 1991)


Korosso, J.: The appellant has presented this appeal challenging the decision of the District Court of Tabora before which he was charged with three offences. In the 1st count, he was charged with and convicted of the offence of D corruption c/- paragraph (2) of the First Schedule to and section 56(2) and 59(2) of the Economic and Organized Crime Control Act No. 13/84. He was sentenced to 4 years imprisonment.
In the 2nd Count, he was charged with and convicted of the offence of personating a public officer c/s 100 (1) of the E Penal Code. He was sentenced to 6 months imprisonment.
In the 3rd Count, he was charged with and convicted of attempt at Extortion c/s 290 (1) of the Penal Code. He was sentenced to 3 years imprisonment Dissatisfied with the findings and sentences of the Lower Court, he has appealed F to this Court.
The facts of the case as admitted by the lower court were that on 20/11/1986 the Appellant, a militiaman, who was not on duty then happened to meet the complainant on the way. He accused the complainant of having assaulted a G certain person at the central market. He ordered the complainant to accompany him to the Police Station. On the way to the Police Station, the Appellant suggested that if the complainant paid the sum of Shs. 1,000/=, he would set him free. The complainant promised to pay the money on the following day. The Appellant, who was in company H of another militiaman, parted with the complainant after having seized the complainant's identify card. Meantime, the complainant reported the matter to Officers of the Squad who arranged the trap on the following day, at the I restaurant where they had agreed to meet. The Appellant and co-accused were arrested together with the employee

A of the garden restaurant who had been asked to preserve the money for them.
The appellant in his defence testified that he had been innocently assaulted.
B Mr. Bilaro, the learned State Attorney who represented the Republic submitted that the Appellant should have been convicted of obtaining goods by false pretences as far as the 1st count was concerned rather than convicting of the Appellant of the offence of corruption. He supported conviction of the 2nd count and 3rd count.
C I agree with the learned State Attorney that the abundant evidence supported conviction of obtaining goods by false pretence c/s 302 of the Penal Code. This is so because the complainant had committed no offence known to the law at the time when the Appellant purported to accused him of having committed the offence of assault.
D I am not sure in my mind if the Appellant had committed the offence of attempts at extortion. It having been proved that the Appellant had falsely represented himself as a policeman and that the complainant had agreed to give out the money because of the Appellant's personation as a Policemen, the offence of attempts at extortion c/s E 290 (1) of the Penal Code, was in my humble view, a duplication of the 2nd Count.
On the foregone observations, I would convict the Appellant of the offence of obtaining goods by false pretences in the 1st Count.
As to the 2nd Count, the conviction of personation is up-held. I quash the 2nd Count of attempts at extortion c/s (1) F of the Penal Code, and set aside the sentence of 3 years imprisonment.
Appeal dismissed save for the 3rd Count.


▲ To the top