Found 16 search results

Mathew Gwandu and Leons Gwandu versus the Republic - No. 204 of 2013

2014

The appellants were alleged to have been found in the Tarangire National Park in unlawful possession of three swala pala meat valued at Tshs 1,813,500/-, three did-dik meat valued at Tshs 1,162,500/- and three reedbuck meat valued at Tshs 2,092,500/- all valued at Tsh 5,068,500/- the property of Tanzania Government. Upon conviction they were sentenced to pay a fine of two million shillings or to serve a prison term of twenty years. Their appeal to the High Court was unsuccessful hence this second appeal. Appeal allowed, the Court quashed their convictions, set aside their sentences and ordered their immediate release from prison.

Hassan Othman Hassan @ Hasanoo versus the Republic - No. 193 of 2014

2016

This is an appeal of a decision of the High Court on the Criminal Application No. 15 of 2013 where the judge refused to hear the accused person?s bail application. The judge based her decision on the fact that the accused person was already refused bail in a previous consolidated Criminal Application No. 109, 114, 115, 117 and 120 of 2012, preventing her from re-considering the case. At that time, the judge refused to grant bail to the appellant because the offence for which he was seeking bail was committed while he was out on bail in another case pending trial. He was indeed charged with receiving stolen property under the Penal Code but was acquitted in Criminal Case No. 209 of 2011. Because he was acquitted, the accused person filed the new application for bail examined by the High Court under Criminal Application No. 15 of 2013. Aggrieved by the judge?s refusal, the accused person seized the Court of Appeal with two grounds of appeal: (1) that the judge erred both in fact and in law in holding that the appellant could not file a fresh application for bail pending trial given the fact that he was acquitted in the case which previously justified the refusal to grant bail; (2) that the judge misdirected herself in refusing to entertaining the application pending trial. The accused person is prosecuted for having committed three offences while out on bail in another case pending trial. He is charged together with other accused persons who were granted bail in a consolidated criminal application. After being acquitted in the case for which he had been bailed, he filed a new bail application before the High Court, which refused to hear it. Aggrieved by this refusal, the appellant seized the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to the High ourt for consideration of the bail application.

Emmanuel Saguda @ Sulukuka and Sahili Wambura versus the Republic - No. 422B of 2013

2014

The appellants were found at Serengeti National Park without any written authorization. They were also armed with bows and arrows, knives, bush knives and trapping wires. It was also alleged by the prosecution that they were found in possession of government trophies. The accused were convicted by a District court and sentenced to 12 months imprisonment or a fine of Tshs. 10,000/= on the first count; two years imprisonment or a fine Tshs. 20,000/= on the second count; three (3) years imprisonment on the third count and 30 years imprisonment or a fine of Tshs. 13,617,000 on the fourth count. Having being aggrieved by the decision they appealed to the High court which reduced the third sentence from 30 years to 20 years imprisonment. The appellants decided to appeal such a decision to the Court of Appeal on three grounds: (1) PW1, PW2 and PW3 were not credible witnesses, (2) it was not proved that the appellants were caught in the National Park by PW2 and PW3, (3) the court wrongly admitted the evaluation report and the inventory form, Exhibits P1 and P2. The Court allowed the appeal, quashed the decision and set aside the sentence.

Director of Public Prosecutions versus Yohana Peter Ngoira and Pelo S/O Moleiment Munga @Pelo - No. 331 of 2015

2015

The appellant was appealing against the decision of the High Court which ruled that the offence which the respondents were charged with was not an economic crime to be tried before the High Court and thus ordered that the matter to be remitted back to the trial court for necessary amendments of the charge and proceed with trial accordingly. The High Court judge erred in law by holding that possession of government trophy contrary to section 86 (1) and (2) (b) of the Wildlife Conservation Act, No. 5 of 2009 was not an economic crime.

John Ikland @ Ayoub versus the Republic - No. 196 of 2014

2015

The appellant was convicted and sentenced to 30 years imprisonment for first count and 10 years imprisonment for second count following an admission of guilty entered into during the preliminary hearing held immediately after the accused pleaded not guilty. The appellant appealed to the high court a decision of the appeal dismissing it was rendered by the resident magistrate with extended jurisdiction. The appellant decided to lodge another appeal to the court of appeal to which the respondent raised preliminary objection giving rise to the current ruling. The appeal was dismissed due to defects in the notice of appeal.

Kaunguza S/O Machemba versus the Republic - No. 157B of 2013

2015

The appellant was sentenced by the Resident Magistrate of Shinyanga as follows; 1st Count: Entering into a game reserve. He was sentenced to custodial sentence of one year in jail. 2nd Count: Unlawful hunting in a game reserve. He was sentenced to pay a fine of Tsh. 200,000/= or one year in jail in default. 3rd Count: Being found in unlawful possession of weapon in a game reserve. He was sentenced to pay a fine of Tsh. 150,000/= or one year jail in default. 4th Count: Unlawful possession of Government trophies. He was sentenced to 20 years imprisonment without an option of a fine. He appealed against the decision to the high court which upheld the decision of the Resident magistrate but changed the sentencing of the fourth count to a fine of TZH 54,600,000/= failure to pay will serve jail sentence for a period of 20 years. The appellant is appealing against the decision of the High Court to pay a fine in the tune of TZS 54,600,000 failure of which has resulted in serving alternative jail sentence of 20 years for being guilty of possessing government trophy. On appeal the state attorney for the respondent raised a jurisdiction issue and prayed that the case goes for a retrial. The Court of Appeal Quashed all the decisions of the subordinate courts, set aside the sentences and ordered the appellant to be released from jail.

Bikolimana S/O Odasi @ Bimelifasi versus the Republic - No. 269 of 2012

2013

The appellant was found in a game reserve to be in possession of fire arm and meat of the animals named in the species sub section below without a valid permit. During trial he denied the facts as presented by the prosecution. The appellant was convicted by the Resident Magistrate Court of Tabora and sentenced to 15 years on 1st count, a fine of 2 million Tshs or serve ten years in case of default for 2nd count and 10 years imprisonment for 3rd count. He appealed against the conviction and sentence to the High Court but the appeal was dismissed. He then lodged an appeal to the Court of Appeal (1) that, prosecution witnesses contradicted themselves, (2) that, there was no consent and certificate from the DPP to confer jurisdiction on the Resident Magistrate?s Court to handle with the trial. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal for lack of merits.

Popart Emanuel versus the Republic - No. 200 of 2010

2011

The appellant was found in the district of Songea to be in possession of 14 elephant tusks without a valid license following a hint provided by an informer that the appellant was going to transport the tusks. He was arrested and confessed to the charges. He was then tried and sentenced to 20 years imprisonment. The appellant appealed against the decision of the trial court to the high court which summarily rejected the appeal. Being aggrieved by that decision he appealed to the Court of appeal on the following grounds: (1) the police officers searched the motor vehicle without search warrant and no receipt was issued and signed as mandated by section 38 (1) and (3) of the Criminal Procedure Act, Cap 20 R.E. 2002 and (2) the evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW4, who were police officers, should have not been relied upon as they came from one office. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Mkome Nyang'Ombe versus the Republic - No. 50 of 2014

2015

The appellant was convicted by the trial court on three counts and acquitted on one count. Aggrieved by the decision he appealed to the high court which upheld the decision of the trial court. He then appealed to the Court of appeal on the following grounds: (1) that, the trial and first appellate courts erred in law and fact to rely on the prosecution?s evidence in which the complainant did not testify, (2) that, the trial and first appellate courts erred in failing to detect that the Public Prosecutor (PP) in the case was below the rank required to prosecute economic offences, (3) the trial and the first appellate courts erred in law and fact by relying on exhibit P3, certificate of identification and valuation of trophies, contrary to the relevant laws, (4) that, the trial and the first appellate courts erred in law and fact by neglecting the appellant?s strong defence and (5) that, the case under appeal was not proved beyond reasonable doubts. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.