The accused was found in possession of one kilogram of giraffe meat after the authorities (the Police at Ruaha National Park) during patrol after receiving information from an informant that the accused was in such possession. He was found guilty.
It was alleged that on the 16th day of June 2015 at Ruaha National Park within Iringa Region was found in an unlawful possession of an elephant tusk valued at USD 15,000 equivalent of Tshs. 33,090,000/= without a permit. He was also found wiith firearms (a rifle and a Mark 4) as well as ammunition. The case was discharged under section 91(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act,Cap 20, that is, the prosecution did not have desire to proceed with the case.
Director of Public Prosecutions versus Yohana Peter Ngoira and Pelo S/O Moleiment Munga @Pelo - No. 331 of 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The appellant was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment. The conviction and sentence were sustained by the High Court. He was aggrieved and filed a notice of appeal against the conviction and sentence on 28/05/2013. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.
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.
The appellant is appealing against the decision of the high court which upheld the decision of the Resident Magistrate Court on the ground that the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions was not granted in terms of section 26(1) of the Economic and Organized Crime Control Act (CAP 200 R.E. 2002) before commencement of the trial against the appellant. The Court of appeal allowed the appeal but did not order a trial de novo because the appellant has already served over 10 years since he was sentenced in 2003.