19930811 TZHC Mwanza
- Citation
- 19930811 TZHC Mwanza
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Court
- TZHC
- Decision
- 11 August 1993
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- TZHC
- Decision
- 11 August 1993
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The conviction was quashed because there was no admissible evidence establishing that the appellant assisted a person known to be guilty of an offence, nor was there proof that the alleged principal offender had committed an offence.
Court disposition
appeal allowed
Orders
- conviction quashed
- sentence set aside
- immediate release of the appellant unless otherwise lawfully held
02
Material facts
Parties
Francis s/o Chacha
Appellant Counsel: Mr. KabangwaThe United Republic
Respondent Counsel: Mr. Rutaisire03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the appellant was guilty of being an accessory after the fact under section 387 of the Penal Code
- 02
Whether the conviction was supported by admissible evidence
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The appellant argued that the evidence on record did not establish the offence of accessory after the fact and that there was no proof that he assisted a person known to be guilty of an offence.
- Respondent
- The respondent declined to support the conviction, implicitly conceding the insufficiency of evidence.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Section 387 of the Penal Code
A person is guilty of being an accessory after the fact if he receives or assists another, knowing that person to be guilty of an offence, in order to enable him to escape punishment.
- 02
General criminal law principle
Conviction must be based on legal and admissible evidence establishing all essential elements of the offence.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The conviction was quashed because there was no admissible evidence establishing that the appellant assisted a person known to be guilty of an offence, nor was there proof that the alleged principal offender had committed an offence.
Obiter and limits
- It takes evidence which is legally admissible in a court of law to convict a person of a crime.
Court disposition
appeal allowed
- conviction quashed
- sentence set aside
- immediate release of the appellant unless otherwise lawfully held
Source and reliance status
TZHC · 11 August 1993
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
TZHC
Judgment· 11 August 1993
AT r1i'TA.NZA APPELLATE JURISDICTIO:T HIGH COURT CRIIfINAL APfEAL :ii"O. 435 OF 1991 ( Origil1aJ. Crirr,inal Case i:Jo~ 400 of 1'7Si of JG:2e Distl'io:~ Court o:f Serengeti ·Distl'ic-i; at Muguimi :Sefo:;.•e.:: J.B. J.lliAGA:,~A Esq., .9 i)t"" -:.----:i.c•i; Magistrate) FB.Al\J"CIS s/o CB:ACIIA t i g g APP:E:LLAWT Versus T::=:E liliTI1'ED REPUBLIC g : : g s t c i & i g : : z RE3PONDErTT .TuDGMENT The dis·~riot court of Serengeti a:t I::1[,Ts1u met~d out a s/o Cha.eh~ consequen·i; upon a conVid;iol1 fo:;:, Assesso:ry after i4a__fact, contrary to sec·tion 387 o2 t:10 Pe.aal Code., .Je was aPqu.itted of Cattle tb.ef't.9 contrary fo sec-:;ion 268 of t.!ie Penal to section 273(b) of -~he Pe.!'.lal Code,.· The appellant, who was the 0hai17.2a,;.1 o1 EbalimbaJ.i village, 1 had been jointly ch3Xged wi_-l;b. his two ool1 leaders, J.farw-a s/o I:I:rango and lfasana s/o Ifarwa9 as ·~lie .f.i~~ second and t.1.:ird. .. a.ccUGed, respectively, who were a,eqci.·;;·;;ecl oi: all thJ counts. Feeling aggrieved by bo'ch conviction a.:::C:. sa..-ite.nce.9 tl...e appellant has 110w corrie to this court. The 1 earned advocate for tb.e a;ppcllant,· Mr. Kabangwa_, arcnecl. the appeal before me, in the prcs0:10 0 of the 1 earned J 2 a,cYooate for the Republic, Mr,. Rutaisi2G, w'.J_o decli:1eo_ to sup:::iorl" lice:.1oee,1 oat,tle dealer. In t;·w afto:;_--::00:1 o:? Au.,.g,_ist ?7\.½. ·;991 ~\i.-:-..a:ie
PW1 was grazing his 20 heads o:i:' ov::;-:;10 in tJ1e pastur~s~ .Auosi went there with 41 b.eads of oattl0 a;.1d as]::ed 1-~uhab.., PW1 a;_:,r, ella.."l.t arri vccl there., Re was with -'!i;ro sti.:1gusungu co::B.,a.i::.de:;:-s, Jose,:.i PW3 and Salim PW4$ He asked :1i.!.1a~Jo ?r.?'1 where he cot t.'.10 41 head:3 of cattle vhich did not belo:":.g ta t'iat villaco .. I.h_i.:1..a,be PW1, replied tha:'c tb.e:r were b:;_•011[.'lr:; °'.rJ ~us uncle A.i11osi. ·~o t~10 COM Office. On ·[;~1e wa;J, t::.e a;.:i~H~lJ_a,n-i:; c2:.a..,.._;ed !:!.is Dind., a:1.cl_ dir~ted. PW3 anc1 ·nt-4- .,;o \.J:i·'~~~;{:~.:;~1-0. oQ;'.;·~ie :co ;.,,~os. Ar:iosi a:::.d. t~10 cattle ·a;re st'_t,.ii ii_~- t~_~_::~_i·>=·Dage~ _· ..- :.-· ;:)/\.;~~_..,:.~:f _; .·.l With respect~-~ agree.14-it·~·to-tll loa:r~1-ed c6m1sels -~11at -;;~1/.,:.- eV:i.cla~1ce on record f.oll short, by :f2..:r, o::.' establishinG an off311ce ol~c;ed. undo:r section 387 of tb.e PeLaJ. Coc:e., A person :is guilty -~ of a,:1 offence ru1de:r tb.in section who l.'3Ceives or assists a11oil:c:2, ·w:10 is, to .his la.1owlodge, guilty o:f ai.: oi'fmce, in order to . e;.12}.-ils him escape pu..YJ.ishmont. a.11 -:i.'..1-e essential 0l0::10,1ts of the o:'.:'fe,:oo o.'.:.arged we~ , .. ·, EJ3J~ablisllect. to the required extent. 1::10111 edgc on th~ ' t:10 aypell's.nt that .Amos has stolen ·t:.ce ca·~-tle was not/ It uas not s.b.o.,ii.1 !:lo,;;
JL"ilosi uas guilty o:? a.:i o:ffonco~ l 3 1 · lioc~1oed cattie dealer.. l1ll~ cattle c'.id no·~ "!Jelong --.,Go the MbaliLibaJ.i -Vilk,.ge as alleged. il1 t:.ie charge ·sheet, L::. fact, the ovinersbip also accou.nt for- ·i;he f2..ot -'Gb.a:ii Amosi w;:i,n 11ai•\'1or charged nor called. as a witness despite that he w~s i;.1 "&1e village,. !ie had .,, appellai1t had assisted Amosi to escape pt:.i.ua:::iment. It takes evidence which is .legaJJ. ;;r adiJ.is·sibie-in a 001-1.rt o:t law ·i;o convict a p'3I'so:1 of a crime. Si10:1 evid.e:.1ce .'.las to Such eV:idenc e, it would appear, 'Go·i;aJ_J.y lz.a)::ed in this case, a:1cl 3,ppellant of an offence w11ich was noJ.; estaolishecl in evidence,.; \ L1 the event, I allow the appeal, quash the conviction~ se·~ aside the sentanoe, . and. hereby o:rcle:r-t>.::: iIJ;;,edi.ate release oi' ttlo appella,."'lt 1 Fra:1cis s/o Cha.cha, unlesc ot:.1G1.--.,ri.so la.w:fdly \- .... -r ,Ml"TANZA · August 11th 1993 · For Appellant: Absent For Republic g Mr. Ru:i:ia.:isire ._ I
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.