Found 205 search results

The Republic versus Said Abdalah - No. 06 of 2015

2016

Accused was arrested at Mihanda Village in Mikumi Ward within Kilosa District on allegations of been in possession of the Government trophies contrary to the provisions of the law. He was charged at Kilosa District court. He was found in possession of the Government trophy to wit 10 pieces of the elephant meat valued at Tshs. 24, 127, 500 the property of the Government of the United Republic of Tanzania and without permit or license. The accused person was acquitted.

The Republic versus Stambuli Rashid - No. 04 of 2014

2016

Accused Stambuli Rashid was arrested at Mfulu Village, Kitete Ward within Kilosa District with allegations of possessing four (4) kilograms of bushbuck meat. He was charged at District Court of Kilosa. Accused was found in possession of four (4) kilograms of Bushbuck meat valued at Tshs. 936,000. He was charged of the offense of possessing Government trophy contrary to the laws of the country.

The Republic versus Hamisi Juma Ramadhani, Husen Juma Bakari and Hilali Jafalo Omary - No. 17 of 2015

2016

The accused persons on 19 May 2014 at Artha Village in Kondoa District in Dodoma Region were found in possession of two elephant tusks weighing 43 kilograms. On 10 June 2014 the third accused sent an amount of Tshs. 6,000,000/= to first accused to facilitate procurement of the elephant tusks. The first and second accused persons were found guilty and the third accused person was acquitted.

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.