20110908 TZHC Dar es Salaam
- Citation
- 20110908 TZHC Dar es Salaam
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Court
- TZHC
- Decision
- 8 September 2011
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- TZHC
- Decision
- 8 September 2011
- 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 trial was vitiated by a fatal procedural irregularity as the pleas of the appellants were not individually recorded and the record was silent on the opportunity to object to the translator, especially given the language barrier.
Court disposition
appeal allowed
Orders
- decision of the trial court quashed
- sentence set aside
- case to commence afresh before another magistrate of competent jurisdiction
02
Material facts
Parties
Abdallah Ally Ghuhad and 5 Others
AppellantRepublic
Respondent Counsel: Mr. Mhina State AttorneyAmounts and remedies
- Prison Term (count 1): months 6
- Prison Term (count 2): years 5
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the plea was properly recorded for each appellant individually
- 02
Whether the language barrier and opportunity to object to the translator were properly addressed
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The appellants challenged the conviction and sentence on grounds including improper plea recording and language barrier.
- Respondent
- The respondent, represented by Mr. Mangoi, resisted the appeal.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
General principles of criminal procedure
Each accused must have their plea recorded individually and in detail, especially when tried together.
- 02
Criminal procedure requirements
Accused persons must be given an opportunity to object to the translator and the record must reflect this.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The trial was vitiated by a fatal procedural irregularity as the pleas of the appellants were not individually recorded and the record was silent on the opportunity to object to the translator, especially given the language barrier.
Court disposition
appeal allowed
- decision of the trial court quashed
- sentence set aside
- case to commence afresh before another magistrate of competent jurisdiction
Source and reliance status
TZHC · 8 September 2011
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· 8 September 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA
AT DAR ES SALAAM CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 43 0~ 2011 (Originating from Resident Magistrates Court Kibaha at \ Kibaha Cr Case No.· 5/ 20;11)
ABDULLAH ALLY GHUHAD AND 5 OTHERS.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . · . . . . . . . APPELLANT
VERSUS REPUBLIC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RESPONDENT Date of last Order: 05/09/2011 Date of Judgment: 08/09/2011
JUDGMENT KARUA, J. The six appellants, namely, Abdallah Ally Ghuhad, Mohamed Abuhar Touryai, Mohamed Hassan Mohamed, Mohamed Abdulkarim Farah, Jibril Abdul Aadan and Noor Ali Hussein, were jointly arraigned before the Court of 1 .., Resident Magistrate at Kibaha as the 1st , 2nd, 3rct, 4th, 5th, and 6 th accused, respectively, on two counts of being unlawfully present in the country and unlawful possession of ammunitions, contrary to Section 31 ( 1)(i) and (2) of the Immigration Act, Cap 54, RE 2002; and Section 4 (1) and 34 (1) (2) of the Arms and Ammunitions Act, Cap 223, RE 2002, as amended. The appellants pleaded guilty to the crimes and were convicted as charged. They were then .._ _, sentenced to serve a prison term of 6 months and 5 years, ·-- respectively. The conviction and sentence aggrieved the appellants, hence, this appeal, which was resisted by Mr. Mangoi, on behalf of the Republic. The appellants preferred six grounds of complaint against their conviction and sentence. However, before considering the merits and demerits of the appeal, I am 11 • satisfied that the trial was caught up with one fatal ' ',I procedural irregularity. As demonstrated, the record reveals that appellants pleaded guilty to the crime. However, the plea of all the appellants, were put together in one lamp without regard to particulars or details of what each the appellant had said. The
record subscribe that in the 1st count, the 1st to 6 th accused said in unison, "it is 2 -- rr----- • true", and in the second count, the same style was recorded by the trial magistrate. It is not known what exactly the 2 nd , 3 rd ,4 th and 5 th appellants said. With respect, I am of the considered view that this type of plea recording is questionable. Indeed, the word used, "it is true", represented an affirmative answer to a question. However, the type of plea recording is displeasing as noted it is caught with some doubtful characteristics, because as ~ said, it is not known if the answer was put to all of them simultaneously and the answer, likewise. It is the duty of the presiding magistrate, to take the plea from each accused, when tried together and the trial magistrate, must record the plea of what each accused said, one after ' another. Moreover, in view of the language barrier, which was imminent in this case, I do not think every constituent of the charge were pointed out. The record is silent. This .~: is more important because the appellants were only versed in Somali language and their exception, against the translator, might as well, be true, since the record again is silent, as to whether the appellant were offered an opportunity to take exception against the translator. 3 ... For the foregone technical reasons, I allow this appeal, quash the decision of the trial court, set aside the sentence and I accordingly order that this case commence a fresh •. before another magistrate of competent jurisdictions. It is so ordered and directed.
JUDGE 08/09/2011
DATED AT DAR ES SALAAM Appearances: For the appellants: All present in person For the respondent: Mr. Mhina State Attorney 4
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.