19841101 TZHC Mtwara
The appellant failed to remit the collected funds to the District Education Office and his explanation was rejected as an afterthought; conviction and sentence were upheld.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 19841101 TZHC Mtwara
- Parties
- Appellant: Ali Ko Alibibi Kesola; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 1 November 1984
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appellate Judgment
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Theft by Public Servant, Minimum Sentences Act, Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
- Source Language
- english
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Ali Ko Alibibi Kesola
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appellate Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellant was guilty of stealing by a public servant under sections 265 and 270
- 2 Whether the sentence imposed under the Minimum Sentences Act was proper
Ratio Decidendi
The appellant failed to remit the collected funds to the District Education Office and his explanation was rejected as an afterthought; conviction and sentence were upheld.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Conviction and sentence affirmed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
.\ BIGH COURT CBf1.1nc. L APT :::AL 1m. 2,6 ·. 0:;)' 1982 Original Crimh:Bl Case Lo. 5 of 1982 o:f the District Court of Tunduru District At Tu11d1.U'U Before M.G.C. fajeri 9 .=;sq., :;:iesident Magistrate ALI.KO ALIBIBI KE30L\ ••• , ••••••••• AI·I<STI..\.l'T Versus· MSUliI, J. In the District Court o:t Tlli1dt~ru, appellant was convicted of I stealii-ig by public .servai:t contrary to se~tiorjs 265 i=i'nd 270. He was sei1tenced to thr~e years impi-:i.sorrrneD,t under the Minimum Sentences Act. He is non appoalii".!,,,. ac:;aij:St both conviction and sentence.• · Up :to the ti,me v1her:. he. 0ot L:volved 'ir. this case, appellant • ,.~a,::aployed by the rir;J2°c:~:· o:.: . 'c;:.wa tion as hEiadteacher of ·Haji~j:i, :~.t,e,nded }):..-~.;u•y .'Jchoo,J,.{ Tu:u1€i.t:1~u·. -jj;: '.'.fs,,.n6t-a •&Ub~eot,- . ' ... t • ' . ~ for. contention th& t i;~ the colfCse of his duty appellant received '' a •.to~l of sl;s .3 ,320/= :;:'mm p0\'enfr, be;i.115 coJ1tribution towards , Universal P:;_·~ry i:Aluca·cion.(u:r)::~). I:{e was supposed to remit ,·th:i:s· mon~y to the Dis'trict .'.;ducatipn Office Tur:i<luru; but he 9 could not p~duce it when r.1, \".~.;i.:: required to do so. In defe:r..ce f appellc:irJt coEtc~ded tl'l'.': t he h.".d er.trusted tba t money to !1is: friend one I3. Ebc•.iGla for sa'.fe custody. The learned trial Resident l5a.Gistrs te r:,;jccted t~;is explvr..; tion. '..fi th reopcct~ he wa13 clui te .right to do ,~:o. .prcllc:1'Jt · hacl been with ti:.is money fol' over one ye;:,.r. _,nd dn:dr,{~ "C'airitin1e hd1c1.d visited the :, District ,!;dµcation 0:f:'fioe Gsvsra'- occ~sio~·;s. · ~i:hore .is ,:.,c;> rGason why he did not remit t~·i~ rD~!S;:,' to th? s~,id' office as ·required.· Duri~ t~e trialj appclle,:t prouuced a chit (r:;xh.Bl) in whi_ch ·-it is stipulated tl-:2t 12e h."'!'-,cled o;.~.e B.~ }Eb"awala shs.3,320/==: for · · safe cu$,tody. Howeverf L is ir.,. ~vidGi:cc that he could not pro.duce the said chit to his empl9ye1~. 1?hp:r. he. 1Vc1s first. questioned •..... /2 . ... ' , l - 2 - about the money. It is o1wious t~·:: 'S t:ie alleged transaction as purportedly evidenced b~r :::':;d1 •. _:").J ic bogus. This is typical of an afterthought defo:ce. n th the evidence o"~ :c&cord, tl:G trial msgis tra te _h:,cl no 1 alternative but to c,::Evict t~2.G 2::;p(;ll.rnt. ' ' . The t:.1ree years ja:il sente11cG \W.s lec,ally mam~~\ -:_;017. 'ihis appeal is therefoi•e dismissed at its e,:tirdt.• Judge 1.11.84