E Sisya, J.: This is an appeal against both conviction and sentence. Regarding the conviction, the appellant alleges in his petition of appeal that the learned trial magistrate erred on both matters of law and of fact. Without beating about the bush, starting with the latter, the evidence before the lower Court F leaves no reasonable doubt as to the appellant's guilt. This appeal on this aspect of the matter is, to say the least, fruitless and/or is without substance. On the evidence adduced I am satisfied, and I so find, that this appellant made one Sofia Hassani (PW2), then a pupil at Chanika Primary School in Handeni District, G pregnant and thereby made her fail to attend school.
On the legal aspect of this appeal the appellant avers in his petition, inter alia that the facts do not disclose any criminal offence that the law under which he was convicted, i.e. the Primary School (compulsory Enrolment and Attendance) Rules, 1979, GN 129 of 1979 applies only to parents and guardians of children H who have attained a school attending age and that the said law is not applicable to him except the law dealing with affiliation. All these arguments are based on a misconception of the law and they have, thus, no leg upon which to stand. For the benefit of the appellant, the provision of the law under which he was I charged and subsequently convicted
is section 4(2) of GN 129/79 (and not GN 129/73 as he himself quoted). The relevant portion thereof reads A and I quote:
(2)Any person other than a parent who, under any circumstances, causes a child not to attend school regularly until the completion of primary education shall be guilty of an offence ..... B
The 'any person other than a parent' here includes people or persons such as this appellant and the expression 'under any circumstances' includes causing a child not to attend school by making a girl pregnant. Child is defined in Section 2 of the Primary School (Compulsory Enrolment and Attendance) C (Amendment) Rules, 1982 GN 28 of 1983 as any child who has attained the age of seven but has not attained the age of thirteen and includes any child who is still pursuing primary school education." Sofia Hassani (PW3) was such child as at the time the appellant made her pregnant and she was still pursuing D primary school education.
As I think has sufficiently been demonstrated GN 129/79 is applicable to the appellant and any other person. For the avoidance of doubt the law dealing with affiliation is equally applicable to the appellant. Subject to the law of limitation it is, however, up to Sofia herself to invoke it should she so desire. E
Now, turning to sentence the maximum penalty for the offence with which the appellant stand convicted is a fine of Shs. 3,000/= and six months imprisonment. The learned trial magistrate sentenced the appellant to pay a fine of Shs. 2,500/= or, in default of payment thereof, to go to jail for nine months. He paid the fine. F The appellant is, admittedly, a first offender. In his address before sentence in the Court below he stated that he was aged 48 years; he is married with a total number of fourteen dependents including ten children. The girl whom he made pregnant and curtailed her primary education, Sofia, was aged only eighteen years G - someone fit to be his, i.e. appellant's own daughter. As a married and grown up person one wonders that the appellant lacked to necessitate his going for a school girl. To demonstrate the odium that the society holds for such actions as that of this appellant in this matter the sentence imposed by the lower H Court was well earned by the appellant and I so hold.
Suffice it to say that after perusing the record of proceeding I am satisfied, and I so certify, that this appeal is devoid of merit and the same is forthwith summarily rejected. I