Masanche, J.: Appellant Jumanne Ramadhani was charged with and convicted of D obtaining money by false presences contrary to section 302 of the penal code. He had been charged along with another person called Mohamed Ally, Jumanne Ramadhani, the present appellant, was the second accused, according to the charge sheet dated 11/8/86, and Mohamed Ally was the first accused. Mohamed Ally got acquitted on a E benefit of doubt. The present appellant got convicted on all the counts he had been charged with, and was sentenced to an omnibus sentence of three years imprisonment.
I must straight away say that it is unlawful to award omnibus sentence. Each count F must receive a requisite sentence. The magistrate may then decide to order the sentences to either run concurrently or consecutively, depending on the nature of the charges and the evidence unfurled at the trial. A commentary to the case of R. v White [1972] Crim. L.R., at 193, a case decided by Queens Bench Divisional Court G comprising Lord Widgery C.J., Sacks L.J., and Ackner J., says this:
The general principle that offences committed in close association with each other should not normally attract consecutive sentences applies only where the offences concerned H are broadly similar in character or related in terms of subject - matter. Where two wholly different offences are committed at the same time, even against the same victim, consecutive sentences may properly be imposed. I
In that case, a Jamaican got convicted on five counts of obtaining property by A deception and one of rape. He got money by telling the victims that he could cure them of their evil spirits. From one of them, a woman, he demanded sexual intercourse as a cure. Consecutive sentences were imposed and upheld.
Yet, in another commentary, in [1970] Crim L.R., at page 593, it is said, on B sentences:
As a general rule, consecutive sentences even though imposed for quite separate offences should not be added together to produce an aggregate sentence which is totally C out of proportion to the gravity of the individual offences, or the most serious of them. A court is entitled to reduce what would be the logical total sentence if a strictly mechanical approach were followed, if this is necessary to produce a reasonable result. D
The general rule, and the pattern in most cases is for the court to impose sentences on each count and then order that the sentences should run concurrently.
The appellant, as Mr. Kabonde, the learned state attorney has pointed out, is E appealing against sentence. He is not aggrieved at the conviction. Indeed, he could not complain against the conviction on such tangible evidence that was unfurled at the trial. Appellant went around in the township of Mwanza soliciting for money, especially F from Asian businessmen, saying that he was sent by Government officials to collect such monies for Mwenge Festivals. Almost all the Asian businessmen who parted with money identified him in Court to be the very fellow who had gone around to collect such moneys. In total, he collected about Shs. 10,000/=. He then got caught and was sent before law enforcing organs; then he got charged and got convicted. The sentence he G got was one of three years for all the offences put together. Such a 3 year jail term was not on the high side.
However, for record purposes, I have to rectify the sentencing procedure that the learned magistrate had adopted. I order that on each of the five counts the appellant H be sentenced to three years imprisonment. But, these sentences should run concurrent to each other. That is to say, the appellant only serves three years imprisonment.
I Appeal is dismissed.
A
________________