19701231 TZHC Mwanza2
.ttu snot.o1d ot. euioq ott ulcal uo -co.s 9qus1odds UT PIflICJ 0fl400 Q UOV11D 0TO JO POOq 0ATJ pDt;iqUopt S DTfl. D10tM osrtoq S txUcdcI oq. (I'Md) uStxtIduxoo ot. poTucIwoOo9 ot qitj. 1OZJD 0U. O. S (•) oiorc Jo Vuowtqsc. oi oqwoci jttTxp O. txio soz.. (quiiodd) oi so woi. iojs 1001 o. wit P0)4SS otpt q.tt0odd...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 19701231 TZHC Mwanza2
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 31 December 1970
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
No structured case brief is available yet for this judgment.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
.ttu snot.o1d ot. euioq ott ulcal uo -co.s 9qus1odds UT PIflICJ 0fl400 Q UOV11D 0TO JO POOq 0ATJ pDt;iqUopt S DTfl. D10tM osrtoq S txUcdcI oq. (I'Md) uStxtIduxoo ot. poTucIwoOo9 ot qitj. 1OZJD 0U. O. S (•) oiorc Jo Vuowtqsc. oi oqwoci jttTxp O. txio soz.. (quiiodd) oi so woi. iojs 1001 o. wit P0)4SS otpt q.tt0odd ot. ScL wtt oq, .no1q 01DM quotttoc1woo otfl. .&q poTJTquopT 0fl400 TO 30I oâJ 0tq. q.otjq moo oi4 poq. otM (t7''d) T1oJp Jo oOuopTAo 0t DIDt •osnot s 1 qr:oodds Ut ptzrto; Dt. JO OM. Dtq. pU 1flOO Dt. oq q.tflO1CL 01DM J0T. Dq. zojs swoq S uutouiOo qe 01DM ToTT.TM soAto Otto 'UOS STIJ JO T.fl. 1)UU utit5.woo Otfl. JO UOWtSD D tO1J IDOTO St owoq STU UIOIJ TIDOq.S 0fl400 JO PoOtT TZ SItI JO qlDd s .ttoutsTdwoo Duq q pDtJtUOpt Vidwo 01DM ipTTao JO P0tt STuomj. Otfl. JO OATJ 14113j S 5t{ODT3 DUO ./o wtt O. 2no1q 01.)fl.Z) qpoo JO 2D1. Dtfl lTD WI- pOD pT DWI. STT.JJ ttoL1oq..D.s snotAold Stt[ po3uto 07 0fl400 JO peDq o 0tfl T-noqu uotsonb O. IOMStZD Ut qUDOdcID DTT .1flO3 j1DWt1d 0T.fl D 01DM UOt wtt 01. o.00 TO poT C, ot. pUD oqotIsM DUO oq. pouooq 0T20 JO 20T Otfl JO '3U DØDIA Dt Dt qUDDddD otjq OSflOt Siti q- °UWOC 1 UDITOddD Ut ptrnoj D4DO JO PDDT qxnoo J1DU1t1d ot. oq UDD 0517 °.1fl3O 1UU1I1d S1t1't)flW O. q.UDS pUD poqSDlID 0DM US11oddD OT.TJJ pOSUJOl S1D5DlltA OUT .nq Dfl.400 PDIOTtOncTs DT[q. IOJ Sed oq. uITLI M0fl5 OT P14013 OuT DO)SD .UDjjDddD OUT pD2 011DUt tztoq 110 •pO1otflS0 pU0001 uooq Dt MOO Dt. Stfl p0MOtS tIOitM pDDU SMOO S SD [DM S2 '1)ttnOJ SSM TaDw tSD1 OSrLOT.T SUDT1Ddd 1J O 1.101505 2 10qJJ °0SflOt SuSUDdCTS Oq. wDtt_ pD[ tott sutid.00j pDOO1. S1D5TTtA pus ws'a US OPSW °H 'T11 srq WOIJ UDO.S 01DM DT45O JO T)0Dt1 I? s 1 usUts1dwoo 69/c/? JO .1PtUDtflU0 j0tfl. Dfl4? 10 UOTOTAUOO S qU511Dt O. UOtOTJJnS 0DP 1flOO 1DMOT Dtfl. Ut oouoptao Dtfl. .D1fl. 0D1.D I ' U1O4t PDU1DO1 otq JCIL p01)215 57 0OU0.U0S pUS UOt.0tAUO0 D11 SUtDD utT2odd0 St OH •quowtottmd I51Od10 0 SO)O1S 17 ? pue uouiuostiduit S12Oi 17 oq. poOuou0s PUS 01)03 IDUOd 0t. JO 99? 95/0 JUT.fl. 0 114 00 To PDqOTAUOO SSM U2ETDddD Dt 0S0 OIIfl. UI '•2j 'A7ZNi1 1N5IWDflf 0P03 TOUDd Otfl. JO 99? pue c9? ss/o .Jott Yfl4D3 :51fJI7JJ3 (2(4no0501d IOU t 10) 0cIEU° ' ' ' ' ° ° orIndRH 5IHL SflS1OA S 0 • 0 S (TosnoOT T 2 Utt10) 1cr ' ° I),Ii7I1'Jll1 JM7AH 0TI0T 6 tS1Dj o1OJoa. ouiOonti 1.0 Ot1qs DIIIOSrL1 O 1flO3 qOt1qSI oq JO 6961 JO QL?'ON 0953 15U1Wt13 IDUti10 oL6i io O?ON '175tdd7 flflJ3 tZOtOtpSt1flf ODIIDdd7 . . •7ZTj1 (')21qstor .Oi1StQ 01. ti) , 7ivzN7Ii d0 JIfl03 }IDIH HJI trI ) // T —2-- The head of the slaughtered cow was also identified by the complainant as resembling one of complainant's missing cattle. 1ppc11ant's memorandum of appeal only rcpaat.what he told the lower court; which defence was not believed by. the trial magistrate. In the circumstances of this case I am not surprised that the learned resident magistrate found appellant's defence as nothing but bogus. ht one time the appellant asked to be allowed to pay another head of cattle for the one he had slaughtered. Then he said that five of tkc twenty head of cattle found in his borne were his own property. Later he changes his story to the effect that all the twenty cattle wore brought to his kraal by a pereon called Chacha s/o Marwa. No court of law will give credit to such inconsistent and extremely contradictory testimony. Ls the cattle were found in the possession of the appellant only VE a day after they had been stolen from complainant's boma and the appellant having failed to advancoraasonable explanation as to how he came to be in possession of the beasts, the learned resident magistrate was right in invoking tho doctrine of recent possession and properly convicted the appellant of stealing the cattle. The sentence of 4 years imprisonment is not, as argued by the learned State Lttorncy, excessive, taking into account that the appellant admitted a similar conviction in 1 96 2. In the event the appeal against conviction and sentence fails. Delivered in Court the 31st day of December, 1 97 0 - (N. zjzisz hcting Judge. Sarnatta for the Republic. ccuscd - absent and nnroprcsentod. a