Criminal Appeal No
IK THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT MWANZA CORAM: MUSTAFA, J . A . ; MAKAM.B, J .A q And. KISflNGA. J.A. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 56 OF I984 BETWEEN LEONARD SELESTINE.................. .... . . . . APPELLANT VERSUS THE REPUBLIC............................... * . . . RESPONDENT (Appeal from the D e c is io n o f the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- Criminal Appeal No
- Court
- TANZLII
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 1 January 1985
- 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
IK THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT MWANZA CORAM: MUSTAFA, J . A . ; MAKAM.B, J .A q And. KISflNGA. J.A. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 56 OF I984 BETWEEN LEONARD SELESTINE.................. .... . . . . APPELLANT VERSUS THE REPUBLIC............................... * . . . RESPONDENT (Appeal from the D e c is io n o f the High Court o f Tanzania at Mwanza) (Munyera J . ) dated, the 24th day of August, 1984 , in Criminal Appeal No.76 o f 1984 JUDGEMENT OF THE COURiT MUSTAFA, J . A . : This is a second a p p ea l. The a p p e lla n t and 3 other persons were charged with armed r o b b e r y . They were a lle g e d to have broken in to the house o f P .W .l. Both P .W .l and P.W. 3 who were in the house i d e n t i f i e d the a p p e lla n t who was Accused 2 a t the t r i a l and another person Accused 1. They d id n o t i d e n t i f y the other two p ersons. Both P .W .l and P.W. 3 had known the a p p e lla n t and Accused 1 p r e v i o u s l y as th ey liv e d in the same v i l l a g e . The t r i a l Court found that P .W .l and P.W .3 had p r o p e r ly i d e n t i f i e d the a p p e lla n t and Accused 1, and found that the r o b b e r y took p la c e as a l l e g e d . He c o n v ic te d the a p p e lla n t a r i Accused 1 as charged and sentenced them to 7 years impr isonmenife# Both o f them appealed to the High Court, and the ground o f appeal was i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . The High Court confirmed the f i n d i n g o f the t r i a l c o u r t and d ism issed the app ea ls. Now o n ly the a p p e lla n t i s a p p ea lin g to t h is Court. He i s again a p p e a lin g on the q u e stio n of i d e n t i f i c s t i c - n . In our view i d e n t i f i c a t i o n i s a q u e stio n o f f a c t and sin ce both the co u r ts below , on evidence adduced b e f o r e them, have been s a t i s f i e d that the a p p e lla n t was t » •»«••• - 2 - p r o p e r ly id en tified , t h i s appeal i s incompetent as no law i s in v o lv ed and i s d ism issed . Dii’ETI' at MltaiiZ... t h i s 2nd c.ay of December, 1985• A, iJUST.J^ jusTig;, or iiPPi?i)L L. iL.K.IIIT JUSTICE 01^ PPIJL 1’ . H. I IS. JUSTICE QF .Fir.-.L i\ I c e r t i f y th a t t h i s i-. a true copy of the o r i g i n a l .