19710917 TZCA Dar es Salaam2
eav eo eq. ;o $oj: TtV 3 UflOCtCt 03 G$ O 60i7 'th30 a 0 uUUTWO TWea pU OUOTOJ r3oTpeII ,o (o) ()9 i/o 9OL80T! STWP UTXCI LA Pa9 aVqo ptte cuoLuT uo pod o4 o.zq pu aa alA pnooc ot ic iee. GA13 zou tflA ii UOiPTTt[O L.t u1cc -i &T'1 MOP EL13 uexputjO /)1 !g -crI POS UDOV pu q uo p o ~ v aodo svm OlTbl TuelTPBUr CH...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 19710917 TZCA Dar es Salaam2
- Court
- TZCA
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 17 September 1971
- 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
eav eo eq. ;o $oj: TtV 3 UflOCtCt 03 G$ O 60i7 'th30 a 0 uUUTWO TWea pU OUOTOJ r3oTpeII ,o (o) ()9 i/o 9OL80T! STWP UTXCI LA Pa9 aVqo ptte cuoLuT uo pod o4 o.zq pu aa alA pnooc ot ic iee. GA13 zou tflA ii UOiPTTt[O L.t u1cc -i &T'1 MOP EL13 uexputjO /)1 !g -crI POS UDOV pu q uo p o ~ v aodo svm OlTbl TuelTPBUr CH pø swi OR • pa -pp pto T wetr, j Ruome uo pexado aiwt ot uoxprczt Li 10 punoç wom per pLrno;ii 4 $TtTA Tuopuarl ii at u çt o.uo ut pu çui UT. $çT PU atbo ,xo; unt oq. pproap.. •Ep imut 2UTgnvo st pu tio &TTOO ST oTQz £tip irçi uoTt%Lxo;uT UULL.t)AO OL STt(f Sat-nuup UI # X o op uT spamoov Okt. tboo'rd T3GITT a q1 R UOUT , pttflOOO e 9 qTX. 2UTPtmOaxus pUt Uit[D uan.~ 'u Sjj jo sTZqv ap Vutu tT4 UI ttnoS et ;o UTAOZ UT ATC)L PATOAUT $tWP OU GaM o1 8SflOOt 09 •14 rot &AOtLIt 4OU. pP otjt aTdoed o teq TCp1 OTMOPTdO $18 141- pUt VMlaTleAvll Pfl3 eseirp t flQC[ O!!rnJ PV0 Jd 0 VPTUS ; 0 SWV2,1 0tPTett tL6T UT OSTU Pt 0L61 t11 TWP Sv P$OtI&OTt OU Gxv 'nJfl3 uOpucY) S O pEflflOoT to 0111, ;o s.o; Ot4 pTno onooaoj t3LO Oq. A4TTt PPT 13T PU'8 ei. 'oteq qoo et at POMOOT pu N. SEX 9,UVTT,add 9'q JT, OTAX8 EaT OU .ZO (—/Lt) t3 P9TO$ put SUOJed P9tU j7 Oft. UOtøX U TW8 P PSTzrd totm put ut- 'teciIe et eza.t ouo o sttxtct aUtUpiO 60i cuoa Ptre sjauoT 4T40 vj d rcTPo oij. o () (t)9 9/0 90T,190 TT ISINi UT140t'd ttw (ttoo 't 'f 'tW) 0 4UX4 S TW 1.0TZTCI ti £q ZOAO •Jfi IiOXYW S O ITIO O'$TCL )- tfl oxat& tzt[qoUt put Utit9 dt 2 MMIAK0 N&Wcrnf • 4 ' 1 1 I • •• • • •• • a S otqnds 8fl8te • SS • ! I 4S S • S S e SI • S ... • . • 54-. S 5 S UtTtdV' • upea o/p TVI tq9tH oT'l-Ta t TuostmIll DIV oçx$'ca Tuoutw j o I xao o qoTIJJa Ot{ 0 1L6T 3° iT '°I OSVO 't 3uTmTszO UTlIO tL6i ° t.t boji teethly ttTiTwTzo utQflJ IP T11 OI tIT JIIILI Ji IL the following entry: "The accusede have pleaded guilty and are convicted on their own plea of guilty as charged". The app11ant and the other were sentenced each to 3 years imprisonment subject to confirmation by the High Court. The appellant has now appealed to this court against conviction M sentence.. In her petition of appeal she stated inter alia as follows: "1. That I deny I comitted the alleged of fenco, "5. That the trial rnagistratG convicted me vithout any ground for be relied upon political influence brought by government in this part of country in order to stamp out this practice eompietely". The learned judge who admitted the appeal for hearing minuted as follows- "Judnent discloses no finding and no conviction appears to be on record", Mrs. Ohirwa, learned counsel for the Repttblic, submitted that the learned judge who admitted the appeal for bearing must have made his observations in error in that the, record clearly showed that the appellant was convicted on her on plea. .1 accept this submission, "The appellant's plea was unequivocal and she aamitted facts which amounted to guilt of the offence charged. Her appeal against conviction was therefore incompetent in view of s.313(l) of the Criminal Procedure Code. I now turn to sentence. The learned magistratJ wrote at length on his reasons for imposing a stiff sentehce on the appellant. His style and the tenor of his observations might have prompted the criticism by the appellant that h was talking plitics. I think however that h was entitled to take certain factors into consideration in assessing sentence. What he was saying in effect was that this particular type of offence s prevalent in bingida Re.on and that the illegal practice had brought uhtold, harm to the nation and was an unscrupulous exploitation of the uporstitious belief of the people which should be discouraged. I would not say that these are matters eztrneous to a proper assessment of sentence. I will uphold the sentence and confirm it." CRDR: Appeal against conviction and sentence is hereby dismissed.. Delivered this 17th day of September, 1971. G. C. M. Onyiuke Judge.