19760917 TZHC Arusha
s, k--)n ZN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA AT ARUSHA APPELLATE JURISICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 261 OF 1975 Original Criminal Case Nc. 296 of 1974 of the District Court c-f PARE District at Gonja bfore R. Juma Esq., Primary Court Megistra.te.' LANGOLOTO LANGLSIRI --------- ----------------------APPELLANT (Original...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 19760917 TZHC Arusha
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 17 September 1976
- 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
s, k--)n ZN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA AT ARUSHA APPELLATE JURISICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 261 OF 1975 Original Criminal Case Nc. 296 of 1974 of the District Court c-f PARE District at Gonja bfore R. Juma Esq., Primary Court Megistra.te.' LANGOLOTO LANGLSIRI --------- ----------------------APPELLANT (Original Accused) versus THE REPUBLIC ------- - ------------ -- ---------RESPONDENT (Original Prosecutor) JUDGMENT Nyalali, J. The appellant was charged and c -.nvictod in the primary court of Pare district at Gonja with the offence of Cattle thtft c/s 265 and 268 of the Penal Code and was sentenced to the statutory minimum sentende of 5 years imprisonment. His appeal to the district court was dismissed apparently summarily though the district court h ad no summary dismissal jurisdiction. He is now appealing to this Court. Now, the entire -prosecution case depended on a cow being found in the possessicn of Mzee Lusina who claimed the cow to have been brought to him by one Malami S/c Hen, who also claimed Al that the appellant had entrusted the cow to him. The prosecution case also depends Ofl an admission rnde by the appellant to the p-lice that the cow was his and he had entrusted it to the said Malarni s/c Hen. Now then, neither the said Mzce t3usina, nor the said Malami si Heri gave evi.lencc at the trial. The prosecution called P.W I t P.W 2 and P.W 3 who tetifiad as to what they were told by - the said Mzee Lusina and the said Molami s/o Hen. This Was clearly inadmissible - . as hecray evidence. So the any evidence -adduced by the proecuticn cas the - - admission made by the appellant to the p-.lic officer irplicatig the appellant with the stolen cow. This admission in my view under the circumstces of the case, amcunted to a confession to a pclo officer whichinadmissihle in court. It follows therefore that the apy.ellant had no- case to answer and he should not have been convicted. The cc'nvicti n is now quashed and the sentence is set aside with directions tht appellant be released from jail forthwith unless detained therein for ~ lawful cause. F.L. NSALI, JUDGE - Judgment delivered this same day of 17th September, 1976 at Arusha in the -presence of Mr. Koshur.U- State Attorney. F.L. ALALI, JUDGE /Kimcithi -