N
- Citation
- N
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Court
- TZHC
- Decision
- 1 January 2003
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- TZHC
- Decision
- 1 January 2003
- 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 conviction was based on the evidence that the appellant, as a public servant, participated in the alteration and use of a local purchasing order to obtain oil fraudulently, supported by witness identification and documentary evidence.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed
02
Material facts
Parties
Bernard Evarest
AppellantThe Republic
RespondentAmounts and remedies
- Substantive Sentence (years Imprisonment): 5
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the appellant was properly convicted of stealing by public servant, forgery, uttering a false document, and obtaining by false pretences
- 02
Whether the evidence connected the appellant to the offences charged
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The appellant challenged both the convictions and sentences, arguing insufficient evidence connected him to the offences and questioning the reliability of the prosecution's case.
- Respondent
- The respondent maintained that the evidence, particularly from the witness who identified the appellant at the scene and the altered local purchasing order, established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
General principles of criminal law
Conviction requires proof beyond reasonable doubt and credible identification of the accused's involvement in the alleged offences.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The conviction was based on the evidence that the appellant, as a public servant, participated in the alteration and use of a local purchasing order to obtain oil fraudulently, supported by witness identification and documentary evidence.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed
Source and reliance status
TZHC · 1 January 2003
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· 1 January 2003
, .IL 44 LAJW.L L_Lj'1tj.J 4W4 L.tU.J '. .' • . . . t ORIGINJL CRIMINAL C-.SE N005.98 OF 1975 OF TH DISTRICT COURT QF iRUSHA DISTRICT AT ARUSHA. - _ Before N.I.N Munuo, Esq0, - -- Senior Rcsierit Magistrate ... , nrd K. varcst - - - APPELLANT S :••. • • . : • ... . . OrigIa1 Acusd).. ( v(rsus. : • • -• •. . " c THE REPUBLIC ----- ------ -- - RESPONDENT ----- ( Otigina1 Prosecutor) :- •. . . ... . •H- ' JUDGMNT. ' .• 3 onathaz, •J..- BEBN€RD EVAREST and another were convicted jointly on charges of stealLng by public servnt, forgery, .uttering a fals document an1 obtaining by fals.pretences. They were e3ch scntcncod to a s'usthnUve sentence of 5 years' imprisanrnnt. ThLr othLr accused has not appeiled but --iBERNAREihhas edlerL ,bi,th &,be convictions and setenc'e. The two accused att the r.levant time ucre emrloyces of the epartm nt of Water Development working in the office of , the Regional Water Engineer, Arusha. The appellant was designat.d c1rical off iteh assigned mainly to the ordering of spare parts f.or the machin.ry of that department. Givin3 rise to th chargs was a local purchasing order (L.P.0) with serial numhr 576347. This was taken out by P.W 4 SINGH a mechanical inspctor in that office for purchasing 2011tres of errgine oi. Thé4umrtft!fter it was duly completed y one J1-NES NYANGE (P W 3) a cleric of that office was handed to SINGHO SINGH in his evidence sic1 he
in turn handed the L0P.0 to a driver of tha ofic called LEWI SETH to take it. to Agip for the oil. That was on Otohr 6, 1975. On October9however, he got informationHtht the oil had not been fl s:upplieclby AGIP reportedly becuse that compay sold eagine oil only in -Iruins. ?or reason which are not cler howevLr this drivr was not called. He viould have said what apperie tq the unused L.P.O. It however Seems th - t p.W S MTUI who was th store there who re-gularlr prepared L.P.O'S subeqUently saw that LL.P.O. on his table. Se woUld 1h6wever not be bothcred about it nn,3 lLft .it thee Ultimately, he said he found it thissing. JJME$ on October 9 issued a requisition ord'er for 20 litres of oil apparently after the report that Agip had failed to supply them with Such oil. This they obtained from Government Stores, Arusha. On October 12, the same L.P,O was present d to Aip. signficatitly, however, it had been alt rel by the nun'eral 11 4" to precele th figure 11 20" so as to read 420 litres. P.W ip WAZIRI OH.Rr of Agip duly issued such amount of oil in tWb drums c to the .lriver of a vehicle of water Department who was accompanied - by-ian officer of that department. These he identifiLd as the apellntsIcd-accued and p.W 11 SIMON SYLVANGkwhy Was. driviodt :T the vehicle .n which the rurns were püt. Tn due cousegip sent the de rbneit invic taD th. .s f shs.2003/40. Th .1i1.was, however
:not handeI over to it; ccordi to SIMON the two dms.: isal were off-loa1ed at a place called/Range, apparently a private garage. Tha vital evidence in connecting the appellant with the charges :-ia:that of 'P.W•t1 SyVANGA.: He skid thatdn October 15 he was driving GT8303 of. the office of the District Water Engineer. He was instructed by the apia11t to accompany the co-accused to Agip to collect ......../2
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.