19720915 TZHC Arusha
I 90T9tUt Ue O. peei TTxoeu P T rOm TSqT ITOI I S TOU si 1c1 1 Jxt eTfl nq ex.xt eq4tt peeptsuoo eq iew quewpC et xrioAe; stq Ut q.cnop eIqeuos - eJ e 203 pe.xe•psuoo eq iTeoweI UCAC PPiO q..eq. eseo eouejep etj. Ut Uttt.OU ecs I pus pe.x'tTo spuss eq tTotTTM s seouej;o eqq. tjoq pe..;twwoo 09 pesroos q.st. wsesrsu...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 19720915 TZHC Arusha
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 15 September 1972
- 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
I 90T9tUt Ue O. peei TTxoeu P T rOm TSqT ITOI I S TOU si 1c1 1 Jxt eTfl nq ex.xt eq4tt peeptsuoo eq iew quewpC et xrioAe; stq Ut q.cnop eIqeuos - eJ e 203 pe.xe•psuoo eq iTeoweI UCAC PPiO q..eq. eseo eouejep etj. Ut Uttt.OU ecs I pus pe.x'tTo spuss eq tTotTTM s seouej;o eqq. tjoq pe..;twwoo 09 pesroos q.st. wsesrsu pu TsOw T e spunoqe TlotqtiOeSOJcI eqq. J3 esso @TTT ut CQUCptAc OUTil TSITT P1-S S TGJE0 qnq uotstoep stu ,.io; strosseJ eATs PUS TT-P Ut COUCpTAC CTJI- CSA'CUs TOU prp C St5UT4JISTaT etj otIo;oP Ctfl. JO CSOTO S SCM 51 eUT UOtStV0U00 eLfl. 0 1- CWSO 1-JflO0 etTJ1 sSsexpps PUS S8WCU atetfl. OATO o. penje riq iiso oq. SeSsGu.1M pst CLI Te7T ,.p -tss aeTeT usTTedd •sr.x. eq. jo es.nioo eqq. utxnp Tedodwt peqos a Tpj TsT ,`e Tg Ctfq. TeTTT MOqS OT pJOOCJ CLfl. 110 .UTT40tI ST CJCJ, *TSerbOa OUT ioj uet2 oc UOSeeJ ou sum eJetH. pus PepseId gPse J TR peq q.usedds OlqL oGTeJT ST .? SW eqq.ous Sq J e T JT Tsanbaa O1- e1-eT 001- SCM T T sexeqo Gtfl OT eAtqseJ trTtJJU5 SSS O. pesnjeI pus CCJStSW Jetfl.Otis iq PT11. eq PT1OS eSSO etfl. T STJT pC.STStIt Uetfl. OJ 0p03 ext)P'00Jd TTWTID eITT 3° 90? UOT1-0CS JO suseq ut peuotqnso SCM quseds eqq. uotq.noesod etH. To esoto etn. Tv qt put; TOU p-rp eL pau i n T ea et ueqi pus ewou queM CLI U97M JGMSJP s ut qt ueppr,q pst Ctf TSqT JOOTJJO S UIqSCAUt ei. oq. peutsdxe ej sjooq eonpod 01- peSflJCJ et qoT2sT .usus 'SieTajoeS jçjjq etTq. JO eouesed 0 CT. UT WeTfl. peonpod .XCACU PUS esrioxe CWOS epew CIT tTSeO o. 1-USACCJ sjooq j etT T o pus N 00 9 qsPD ATOd OUT eonpod oq. petnbe UCqM pust ut /çcj sqs psq eiveq OT qq.no .ueItedds eq. q.sqq. peoqs enqçpuedxe pus sdTeoeJ eq. jo uoq.sutwsxe uV -T us qru-n000V eIfl. iq epew set joeqo IL6T 'eqwe,.cIe u •eqsqse eq. jo •spooe er. uideej pus seTiSTeS JO ;uewVsd 'tso US S UTATCD@J 203 eqtsuodse SCM oH - G ~ sTsj sjosj eq. .s 3TJOTO s sem T u e Uaddie et. q.eq. uotioesod elqT 203 OSCO CITIL uewuosrdwt siseV OMT pus Stfl.UOW XT5 oq. peou8.u8S SCM tICTTeddC etjI ' @POD TCUCd Ctfl. JO g ge P US IL? 9UOt1-0OS O. icJsJJ10o SUTTVeTs PUS 601 s/o eouepte upo2q.sep JO Se8JC7O o. Jo ITOeO uo eoueues pus UOTOTAUOO qsutss sTsedds C25 esetTl f 'OqWS2 ======== IN - :ir W o a Ti- f ======== - . GPOO TUd 914 JO c9? PUS ILe s/o q.LICAJCS iq 'UTTV91-S Uflo3 pU 0 , 9 - * •ep00 TUd jo 601 s/o COtteptAC utioJsea T unOD a-ST :3ou3 (.xop-loesoJd T5UT1J0) .uepuodse ---------- - ---------------------------- Drandu SD 5 2 CA (Pos -noov IsUTJ0) - ---------- ----------------- ----------- oi'mrv o/s Hd5Of 01 CCJTS ----- I - bsLq ssmoq, exo;e 1-qWSTa ------------------ IJJ8V9 LW oisIa DVNVJTi J T'fl.)) LLoIuTsIa J1TL ff0 ?L6T 3° t, 9 1 )N 95 7 3 IITNC) TflTNIPIO ?L61 30 191 011 TVIkId flTNITlIuD Jfl3O H -JIH - niiicicrsiunrg,TTraHV vusni 17 dO ino HDIR Ii ------2 ----- — in his Petition of Appeal the appellant raised a ndmber of points that were not disclosed in the evidence; there was no croOs—examinatiôn to question any of the Statements made by the witness for. the prosecatioho The appellant stated that he made certain statenents before the Couirt but the rebdrd does not Snow this and it ieust be presumed to be correct. - The evidence does not support the conviction fr destroyin evidnce The mere fact that the ape. lant r fused to prodLice a bdbk does not necesSaiiy mean that he has destroyed 1 will allow the appeal in this Oharge and quash the convictioh and sentence. As to the charge of stealing 10 cy servant 1 can see no grounds for intexfering with the conviction. The sentenbe is, perhaps, severe but cannot be considered to ce manifestly excessive. The appeal in this case is, therefore, dismissed in its entirety. Delivered in open court at Ardaha the IØi day of September, 1972, 20 I C.E. Bramele, J U DO E. / ICitnathi. 30