REV. CHRISTOPHER MTIKILA v. ATTORNEY GENERAL [2004] TLR
172 COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA ATDARES SALAAM (Lubuva, Mroso and Munuo, JJ.A.) At noon on Friday, armed policemen with warrants arrested the appellant and searched his residence. Thereafter, he was kept in police custody over the weekend up to Monday, allegedly on suspicion of possession of seditious materials. No charges were made against him. The appellant then filed a suit in the High Court against the respondent for false imprisonment, claiming both general and exemplary damages, and interest at both commercial and Court rates, and costs. The High Court found as a fact that the appellant's detention for more than 24 hours allowed by the law without lawful excuse amounted to false imprisonment and awarded him TZS. 200 000 as an exemplary damages; but it refused to award interest at commercial rate and costs. The appellant appealed to the Court asking for enhancement of damages and award of interest at commercial rate and costs. Held; (iii) The respondent's defence that the appellant had to stay in, custody at the police station because the Courts do not work on weekends was flimsy since the police could have given him police bail. JOHN PETER SHAYO AND TWO OTHERS v. REPUBLIC [1998] TLR 198 The appellants were charged in the resident magistrate's court and convicted of
Unauthorized possession off rearms and ammunition, contrary to s.13(l) of the
Arms and Ammunition Ordinance, read together with s.59 of the Economic and Organised Crime Control Act 1984 and paragraph 21 of the First Schedule thereto. During the trial a cautioned statement made by one of the appellants to a police officer was admitted in evidence; and it was explicit about his full complicity in the offences charged, although he repudiated the confession at the trial, alleging that police brutality was used to make him sign it. The information in that statement led to the discovery of two pistols. Upon these findings the trial court magistrate concluded that the confession was admissible under s.31 of the Evidence Act 1967. On appeal it was also argued that the statement was recorded in breach of s.50 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1985, in that the interrogations went on beyond the four hours prescribed thereunder. It was further argued that evidence should have been taken by the trial court on the voire dire to determine the admissibility of the confession. The appeal against sentence was also directed at the refusal by the trial court magistrate to order the prison term of the first appellant to run concurrently with another prison term he was serving for related offences. Held; iii) While it is true that s.50 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1985 prescribes four hours as the basic period for interrogating a person under restraint, a process described in that Act rather euphemistically as interview, s.51 (c) permits extension of such interview for a period of 8 hours where circumstances reasonably demand it, and regard must also be had to the provisions of s.50(2) by which certain periods are to be excluded from the computation of the basic period; iv) Even if there was any breach of the law in regard to interrogations, the fault would amount to a mere irregularity and the issue would be the weight to be attached to the statement rather than the admissibility of the document;