20111003 TZCA Mtwara

20111003 TZCA Mtwara

The appellant was found in unlawful possession of six elephant tusks, having led game officers to their location and offered them for sale without a permit. The evidence of the prosecution was credible, and there were no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts. The conviction and sentence were lawful and justified.

Citation
20111003 TZCA Mtwara
Parties
Appellant: Jerome Hamisi; Respondent: The Republic
Court
TZCA
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
3 October 2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Second Appeal to Court of Appeal From High Court Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Unlawful Possession of Government Trophies, Credibility of Witnesses, Standard of Proof in Criminal Cases, Second Appeal Jurisdiction, Entrapment and Evidence Gathering
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Wildlife Law Economic Crimes Unlawful Possession of Government Trophies Credibility of Witnesses Standard of Proof in Criminal Cases Second Appeal Jurisdiction Entrapment and Evidence Gathering

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jerome Hamisi

Appellant

The Republic

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Second Appeal to Court of Appeal From High Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant was found in unlawful possession of six elephant tusks without a permit or licence
  2. 2 Whether the conviction was supported by credible and sufficient evidence
  3. 3 Whether the appellate court should interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant was found in unlawful possession of six elephant tusks, having led game officers to their location and offered them for sale without a permit. The evidence of the prosecution was credible, and there were no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts. The conviction and sentence were lawful and justified.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Conviction and sentence upheld