Download PDF

Tanzania Judgment

TZHC

19911018 TZHC Tabora1

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The evidence did not link the appellant to the acts of house breaking and stealing. Conviction based on being an accessory after the fact is erroneous as it is a distinct offence and not a basis for conviction as a principal offender.

Court disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • conviction quashed
  • sentence set aside
  • appellant to be released forthwith unless otherwise lawfully held

02

Material facts

Parties

Aidin Ahmed

Appellant

The Republic

Respondent Counsel: Mr. Komba

Amounts and remedies

  • Value of Stolen Items: Tanzanian Shilling 5,000

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Criminal Appeal / Judgment

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
Appellant denied involvement, claimed to be admitted in hospital at the time, produced medical discharge sheet as evidence.
Respondent
Initially supported conviction, but later conceded evidence was too weak to support conviction.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Section 22 of the Penal Code

    An accessory after the fact is not a party to the offence and cannot be convicted as such.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The evidence did not link the appellant to the acts of house breaking and stealing. Conviction based on being an accessory after the fact is erroneous as it is a distinct offence and not a basis for conviction as a principal offender.

Obiter and limits

  • The offence of house breaking is a scheduled offence and should attract a minimum sentence of 3 years imprisonment.

Court disposition

appeal allowed

  • conviction quashed
  • sentence set aside
  • appellant to be released forthwith unless otherwise lawfully held

Source and reliance status

TZHC · 18 October 1991

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.

Source document

TZHC

Judgment· 18 October 1991

19911018 TZHC Tabora1

H ur IN TED HIGH coum OF TANZANIA t--a- n o ~ A.. . . \'. ., AT TATIOPJt. APPELL.\TE JTJI'J:SDICr.I:ION (Tabora Registcy) CRIMINAL AI'PD.\L NO. 260 OF 1989 AL d1U:I1IDiAL CASE NOo 71 OF 1989 1 DISTRICT COURT OF MASWA DISTRICT /• AT H4.f3lr~\. k. Mo So HOZA Esq,., DISTJUCT Mll.G!STBATE • .A.IID1U;UI ~\ID o• • ., o • APPELL.\NT (Original Ao<;nw.~) VE.i.'WUS . .,TEE REPU:BLIC .. o o o u Bl'llS?ONDliiHT ( Original Prosecv.t1Jr) ;JUDGMENT ogether with one Rashid Shaban were oharged am onces i of houst';l brealdng, contrary to section 294 ( 1) . rd stealing, 0011,t:rary to section 265 of the Penal Croce ·ed. to .havo jointly b:i."Olmn' into the dWBlling· llousc ~f I in Maswa to,mship, Maswa District arrl stolo a radio compact cassettes. Tho total value of tho items stolon Tho .radio cassoti;o alone is said to have been worth I t 1vC-s '.!;ho 1st accused at tho trial. .\nd. v.pon conviction to .two years imprisonment for the 1st C·yunt, that is, houso mortt~ imprisorJmcn~ on tho 2nd Count, ioo stealing. _10 6:ppollant ts co-accused boca:l1.sc he wo.s n. ;routh of tordcr J ' : icatod· on the oha.rg'O shoot to havo boon 13 years of age, fivo ,strokes of tlio cane. I • ".ni; · is now appealing ago.inst both conviction o.rrl sontonoo., ----i;:rw,-.,,._c..J.ouril ~f tho en.so is briefly that on tho 16th of l[o.rch, 1987, PoWo 1 1 s houde, v1.s broken into D.i1d o. rn.dio cn.ssotto and. 8

compo.ot oa.ssottos were stolon therefrom. Later P.W.1 w~1s informed b3r PeUo3 . .\lly Kasim tho.t ho saw Rn.shid S.hab.1.ni walking f:i.~om her house with iID ro.d.ioo This infonna.tidn led to tho arrest of Rashid Sha.b::mig ~~ . upon_ questioning, i Rashid Sha.ban rovoo.lod tha.t they ho.d. sold tho rc..d.io to PeW«4 o.t Ma.ln.mpakn • . "..nd . irrlocd. at Ma.lni11pa,kn. the i"'D..d.io in question wc1s fowrl with Po W,. 4 .\ lrla.llah Pa.tel, who claimed th..1.t he. bought tho s.:1id radio f:i."Om tho o.ppollo.nt.- • J.nl that ho c'"":>ught- it at his homo in tho Compci.ny of a pornon ho could not ,,; - 2 :i,aiontifyo .This ·is tho :·substance of tho case against. tho appellantii Tho o.ppollant, •'d017,ied. to ho..'P_. boon_. invol vod in the commiss:i.on of this offence.., 1:10 contended:i --.~that . he ·wns· o.t. the "time admi. tt9d in• ho hospital and produced a, medical discharge shoot 1✓.IJ.icp. -wn.s produced o,irl a<lmitted a~ ~ibiff~- D.• 1o ~ · Mr. Bilaro, lo:J,rnod St:itp .\ttor.noy at _fir3t irrlioo.tod tho.t he was support_i:ng corivieti?.11".-· .Hpwew:r on fuJ."i;her roncction ~ tho course . of arguing tho appca.1, he 'WO-~ of tho view that tho. evidence on 1"Coord . ' was too wco.k to support the __.if:ppollp,nt' s oonviotion11 He thus declined to support it., Thero is no dov.:bt from -'tho evidence on record th:1t PoWo 11 s house was ind.cod broken into- o.nd

tho rndio ar:d tho 8 cotnpaot cassettes we1"0 stolon thoi'c · frbm" .And f\u"iib.or that tho radio tb.o.t ·was fourrl. with 1'.u.4 :was. tho vo_cy.ro.d.io that hM booh stolon from PoWo 1'.s house ani only tho previous do.yo Tho cont.q,ntio1..1S i,ssue . in this :appeal. is tho question whether or not the O.P,l:,ollo.nt . w,a,s . a. ..j_Xl,1"i;y ... 'to. tho . . comL1iss:Lon of tho offoncos cta;r-gcd., Tho appellant . i!:l .protes:ting his. iimoconcb '. . _as. hq di.d at tho trio.lo \· Tho ovidonco .,implict:1ting tho a.1)J)Ollant in this c.::i,sc is.1,:sololy th8.t of .' • .• ,,'I ., Pi'Ta4 who claimed tho a.ppoll.::i,nt. togothcI' with anothor person sold to him tho r.J.dio. I h::i.vo considoroa_ tltl.s ovidonco o..nd I nm inclined to tho vlow tha,t ovon if this ovidoncdo was to be whol~? ·. .,,cco.p~od 9 it wpulc1 not liriJc tho nppeJlo.nt with tho acts of br-o:ik:i..ng cmd stoa.linc;- from Po U o 1 's house, in tho light of Pai'Te3 1 s ovidonco. ~~ccorcling to this w~tness iooo_rPoif•3;t ho _.9nly sci.w _Rc.shid Sha'!,ani, tho a.p1)()1l:1nt's co-a.ccusod wulld.ng fror,11'o~'fo1 1 s ho\,Q.~ with tho r.J.dio in quo$tiono Ho did not so.,y or· sv.g/1"0~_t t:;. J.t the appoll_cmt was also a.ro1...'!.l1do It is tb.1.1s difficult to s2.y, the aj_:lpoJ.lo.nt was o. }?J,rty to tho acts of house bro.::..ld.ng n1'.d stealing in tl:cso circumstances., I 0,m therofo:ro of t;20

oonaiderod I opinion, tho c1"£,:..~c,u ago.,inst the ::i.p1101lo..;,T\;_ wo.s not provodo · It is }?Ossiblo tho a.ppoll.'1nt CC'..;:10 to Uc nsso6iatod wit:: tJ.1is radio 1:1tc:r end could h:1w been l'l one of tb.o persons vrho,·wont to p,,-;·;.4 2-::~. sold tho r.Jdio to him. I nm howovor incllnod to tho view, t.'.1.nt in iho absence of any cvia. onco indic::::.ting_ how_ ho came' to be n.:::isoci::-,tod with this ~..dio, it is difficult to toll for ce1'1iCl.in ,12-icthcr or not in his being a.ssocintod 1,1ith it 1 ho knew or 1:3.d rco.son to boli "ITC tho came to ).10.vo boon feloniously stolon or obtained, to justify the iiwocation of the provision of section 311(1) of the .Penal. The learned trial Magistrate observed in his Judgement that the · appellant did not take _part in the breaking but becau.se he took further sJGeps after the breaking and:stealing, .he was accessory aft(;):r the fact and as such he could not escape conviction. tli th respeci; 1 tl1e learned trial Magi-s-'crfi.te was in errbi:; an assessory af·her the fact, thn:t is 1 if the appeliant was such an accessory t is not one of the parties to an offence, section 22 of the. Penal Code 1~g:fe1.;s. He could not therefore have been convicted on tliat basis. An acceesso~r aft or the ,' · · · ·. h fact is ~istinct offei1ce 11 , ,(.) \h O'\-.\lAJ ,v · · · O ,. '"'\ L ,v l-\ Y\ VI.~ _b ·. I I r· <. -+-i ~Y\ 2 ~

'.:\ \_.q, · \~/'}_{'l-1.'i { ~ I J, ~,... · . ._J ·-<¥ · . r , Ir I am therefore satisfied· that the appellants ·conviction is unsustainable~ The appeal is allowed. The conviction is qi,tashed and the sentence is sot at:i.do. The appellant if still inprison is to be rol<={ased forthui th unless otherwise le,1-tfulzy held. . \ '<1 ' Lci,st~d if I ma;v observe ~assi:ng 1 the offence of house breaking is a scheduled tt..e and as such.it should at least have attracted a minimum sentence of 3 years "imprisorunenji:; Appeal allowed., Wo H. SEICT.'!LE, JUDGE. :18/10/1991 De],ivered ori. this 18th daJ,· of October, 1991 · in tho prese17-00 of I<'.Ir 9 Komba loamed State Attorney•

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Section 294(1) of the Penal Code

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Section 265 of the Penal Code

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Section 311(1) of the Penal Code

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Section 22 of the Penal Code

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

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.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.