THE Court of Appeal would on Thursday deliver its judgment in the landmark appeal involving Nguza Viking, alias Babu Seya and his three sons, currently serving life jail terms for raping and sodomising minors about seven years ago. Deputy Registrar of the court John Mgeta said in Dar es Salaam today that the parties involved have already been notified. The appeal was heard by Justices Nathalia Kimaro, Mbarouk Mbarouk and Salum Massati. Advocates Mabere Marando and Hamidu Mbwezeleni, represented the appellants. Principal State Attorney Justus Mulokozi and Senior State Attorney Yohana Masal, for the republic, called upon the justices to uphold the decision of High Court Thomas Mihayo delivered on January 27, 2005. Mr Marando and Mbwezeleni, for the appellants, argued that evidence tendered by the prosecution was insufficient, had lot of contradictions and incredible grounds to clinch conviction of their clients. Babu Seya and his sons Papii Nguza, Nguza Mbangu and Francis Nguza, were convicted of rape and unnatural offences allegedly committed between April and October, 2003. They submitted that the trial court never conducted examination on the girls aged between six and eight years in order to satisfy itself that they understood the meaning of oath and possessed enough competence of speaking the truth as required by law. Such omission, according to the advocates, was fatal and, hence the testimony given by all victims was unsworn evidence and should not only be disregarded but also discounted. They cited several authorities to back up the submissions and said, therefore, the offences were not proved. The advocates further attacked the judgement given by Principal Resident Magistrate Addy Lyamuya at the Kisutu Resident Magistrates Court in Dar es Salaam, saying it was problematic and that they had never seen a judgement of that nature that contained several irregularities which were fatal. They also complained on the way both Mrs Lyamuya and High Court Judge Thomas Mihayo treated the defence evidence, saying his clients evidence particularly that of alibi was not accorded any weight and they shifted the burden of proof to them to prove their innocence, which was illegal. However, the prosecution supported the findings by the trial court and the court in the first appeal. Mr Mulokozi admitted that the trial court never recorded the examination of victims before taking their evidence, but that was not fatal to the extent of ignoring their evidence. The state attorney told the court that evidence given by the minors was water tight and both the trial court and the first appellate court were right in holding responsible the appellants for committing the offences against the girls of such tender age.