19890619 TZHC Dar es Salaam2
- Citation
- 19890619 TZHC Dar es Salaam2
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Court
- TZHC
- Decision
- 19 June 1989
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- TZHC
- Decision
- 19 June 1989
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
Although the trial court was technically correct in imposing a custodial sentence under section 39(5), considering the circumstances and the appellant being a first offender, the custodial sentence was not appropriate and the appellant should have been given the option of a fine.
Court disposition
Custodial sentence set aside; appellant sentenced to a fine with imprisonment in default.
Orders
- Custodial sentence of two weeks imprisonment set aside.
- Appellant sentenced to a fine of 200/- or one month's imprisonment in default.
02
Material facts
Parties
Appellant
AppellantThe Republic
Respondent Counsel: Mr. Kyulu, State AttorneyAmounts and remedies
- Fine Imposed: KES 200
- Custodial Sentence Set Aside (weeks): 2
- Imprisonment in Default (months): 1
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
Whether the appellant should have been given the option of a fine instead of a custodial sentence for driving a motor vehicle not in good mechanical repair contrary to section 39 of the Road Traffic Act.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The appellant argued that he should have been given the option of a fine, especially since the defects were not very serious.
- Respondent
- The Republic supported the sentence, arguing that the penalty section (section 39(5)) does not provide for a custodial sentence in default of a fine but as an alternative sentence.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Section 39(5) of the Road Traffic Act
Section 39(5) of the Road Traffic Act allows for a custodial sentence as an alternative to a fine, not as a default.
- 02
Judicial remark by the court
Short custodial sentences are not suitable for first offenders.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
Although the trial court was technically correct in imposing a custodial sentence under section 39(5), considering the circumstances and the appellant being a first offender, the custodial sentence was not appropriate and the appellant should have been given the option of a fine.
Obiter and limits
- Short custodial sentences are not suitable for first offenders.
Court disposition
Custodial sentence set aside; appellant sentenced to a fine with imprisonment in default.
- Custodial sentence of two weeks imprisonment set aside.
- Appellant sentenced to a fine of 200/- or one month's imprisonment in default.
Source and reliance status
TZHC · 19 June 1989
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· 19 June 1989
HT TITE IIIGII COURT OF r:i'L.i'TZlJUt,. 11.T DLR ES SJLIJ:JI ..... CRINDJf~L f.PPEl'.L NOe 61 OF 1909 1 o:;ncnTAL CRil!illJii.L Cl~SE H0,1121 OF 1989 versus TTIE REFUBLIC,p ....... ..... o ... 0 0 ti O O · ~ e o O ~-• 6 0 o. d O O O O O O .,RESPONDTIHT JlDJG.NIENT This is an appeal against sentence. Tho n.ocu.oed was convicted of t!1e offence of driving a notor vellicle on tho public ron.cl uhilo (. not in good nech~u.cal repair contrnry to suction 39 of the Road Traffic l..ct 2.J.1d un.s sentenced to two weeks :il:1pr:i.so1mcnt wi tb.out tho option of a fine... It is tho appellant 1s 02,so "G:J.c],t tho appcllo.nt s!1ould have boon given the option of a fine r.101~0 so bocn.u.so the d0f'oots uore not very serious,. The Republic supports tho sentence .?J1d c..rguos that t!J.o sontonoo of inprisonr.10nt was in order as the penalty section (S...39(5) docs not put the custodial sentence in defaul-'c; of a :fine but as nll al toriU'..tivc s01itenco. :t agree with .1"1:r., I(yuld lo&···ned State Attorney that tho iri2.l Court was ri@lt teolUlioally in iuposing c.. custoc.linl sentence 'because section 39 (5) does not put tho custodial sentence to be in default of a fine. But. tald:.-ig the circunstances of tl::.is cascj I c1-o not find t:C.e custodial sentence to be propore Tho a,ppellant should hc.vo been giv011 the option of a fine. More-over short custodial son:toncos nre -not
mrl. table for first off enders as this court has l1ad an occasion to ror.1n.rlc. I therefore set aside tho custodial.. sontonco of two wqoks inprison'"1ont and instoo.cl I will pass a SCi1"'conoe of a f"ino. Now bearing i11 nind that t:tc 0,ppella.nt l:cs alnost conplotcd ~iis sontonccs 'boc~o he hes only two clcyo to go'J I sentence tho appoll~1.t to e. fine of 200/- · or one no11.tl1 1 s inprisonnont in dofaul t •. -·;::.Pi~,i;\" - -:-~~~ ;
JUDGE 19/6/1989,;
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.