19851120 TZCA Dar es Salaam
- Citation
- 19851120 TZCA Dar es Salaam
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Court
- TZCA
- Decision
- 20 November 1985
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- TZCA
- Decision
- 20 November 1985
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
Although the sentence was on the high side, it was not manifestly excessive or wrong in principle, and the appellate court should not interfere with the trial judge's discretion.
Court disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- appeal dismissed in its entirety
02
Material facts
Parties
Appellant
Appellant Counsel: Mr. K. KahiatwaThe Republic
Respondent Counsel: Mr. MtakiAmounts and remedies
- Sentence: 6
- Pre Sentence Custody (years): 3
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
Whether the sentence of 6 years imprisonment for manslaughter was manifestly excessive
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The sentence was unduly excessive; the appellant had no previous convictions, the deceased was the aggressor and had injured the appellant, and the appellant had already been in custody for about 3 years before sentencing.
- Respondent
- The appellant used a knife while the deceased was unarmed; the trial judge considered all relevant circumstances before imposing sentence.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
general sentencing jurisprudence
Appellate courts should not interfere with the discretion of the trial judge in sentencing unless the sentence is manifestly excessive or wrong in principle.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
Although the sentence was on the high side, it was not manifestly excessive or wrong in principle, and the appellate court should not interfere with the trial judge's discretion.
Obiter and limits
- The appellate court might have imposed a lesser sentence but will not substitute its own discretion for that of the trial judge unless the sentence is manifestly excessive.
Court disposition
appeal dismissed
- appeal dismissed in its entirety
Source and reliance status
TZCA · 20 November 1985
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.
TZCA
Judgment· 20 November 1985
• i!PPB'LL.ANT VTI'HSUS THE REPUBLIC• • • • • • • • , • • • RFSPON]ENT ( llppe al f.r om the C')llll i cti on of the High Court . of Tanzania at Tci~.,01' a) ( Chipeta, J.) dated the 9th day of Mar ch, 1'984 -in .9!_~i-~".1J ~~~GAS ?:PAS. _CRs~~JLo~J];__o.L J-9.§1.. ----------. . . The appellant w.::is ch<lr.._;ed Ni th murder, but was convicted of rriansl~htar in the High Court ( Chipeta, J.) and sentenced to 6 yec:i~s imprisonment. Mr. K.;;.hi:l:tt;wQ ha.s appeared for the -appellant before us, ~r • KQlrnngwa dor:s not contest the conviction of manslanghte:1:~ but has SL1bmittad thcit the santence imposed was unduly C.x,oc,q_;ic; '- ar.d has Qs>:cd that the term of imprisonmGnt be l:' <J dU OC d.-· It is clear that the appGl lant had unlawfully kill ad the deceased and the c1ppellant wc1s ric;htly convicted of manslaushter, as the killi:ru happened in a fic;ht. between the de ceased and the appellant. Mr. _K~hangwa has su1.J::1ittod th4t the appellant had no previous ~ conviction, that the dccc4scd was tha aJgresspr and had dislod~ad some tooth of the appellant and t:tcc:it the appellant -had been in custody for about 3 years befoxe he ucis sentencGd. However l'vTr. Mtcil~i for the Republic has pointed out th.:it the appellant had used a knife while the dacGascd was unarmed. ! . 2 The t.r ial · jUdJG .hcid ~111 those fac~s placed before b.im and ho / referred to them l,efore
he pussed siantence. He had imposed the _ / sentence of 6 years after hcivi!1t; tciken ,all the circumstancGs into account. We oux □ elves feel that the sentence is on the .. hit:;h side; very _likely we would havo imposed a leaser sentenpe. ··However we do not think this is a c.:ise in which·, we ~hould interfG1-re with the discretion excrcise,d ·b;r tho trial jUdGe, and we-1,, ccinno~. sc:iy that the sentence is so harsh cis to bG manifostl;;r ,txoeeeiva. ., J. 1 vk dismiss thG nppec:il in its entir~ty, D1ITE'D at MW.1:-llJZll this 20th dL'ly of November, 1985. JUSTICZ 0:Ii' .-iPFB'llL ~.~.::,.,..:,,,."""-.:..ff•·"~ .... -..-~......... ~ - • J1JSTI CH OJ.T' iiPPF AL W-....:R:"7 ........ ="""·"~-'9 ....... ,,, !9" .. - .... ;~- -· I certify that this is .:i true copy of the original.
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.