Munuo J: This is an appeal against the decision in Moshi District Court Criminal Case No 595 of B 1989 wherein the accused Moses Mayunga was charged with breaking into a building and stealing contrary to ss 296(1) and 265 of the Penal Code in that he burgled the grinding machine house of the KCMC hospital therein stealing a mortar valued at Shs 7,000/= the property of the said hospital.
C The complainant, PW2 Peter Paul stated that being the watchman on guard duty with his co-watchman, PW4 Josephat Mkumbo, they routinely combed the KCMC hospital premises only to find the padlock on the door of the grinding machine missing. Upon PW2 opening the unpadlocked door to find out what was happening therein, he encountered the accused Moses Mayunga hurrying D out carrying a mortar he had stolen therein. The watchman then confronted and apprehended the accused red-handed with the stolen mortar. A police officer PW1 Inspector Adam Ndesamburo visited the scene of the crime and formally arrested the accused and the recovered exhibit. The E accused was then charged with the present offence.
The accused jumped bail after the closure of the prosecution case so he remained at large until judgment was pronounced in his absence. He was later traced, rearrested and committed to prison to serve his sentence. Hence the present appeal.
F In his memorandum of appeal the appellant complained that he was unlawfully convicted in absentia and denied his rights of defence and of calling defence witnesses. The proceedings of the Trial Court speak for themselves. The prosecution closed their case on 17 April 1990. The accused then opted to give a sworn defence and to call one witness which he never did because he jumped G bail. He is therefore estopped from complaining against the conviction and sentence passed in his absence upon his own deliberate default to appear for his defence.
The Trial Court had powers to proceed under s 226(1) and (2) and, or, s 227(1) of the Criminal H Procedure Act 9 of 1985. In that regard the trial cannot be faulted.
In view of the above, the appeal is devoid of merit. The sentence imposed on the accused is the mandatory minimum provided under the Minimum Sentences Act 1972. The appeal is devoid of I merit. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed.
A
________________
