Republic v Edson Philimon Ombe Criminal Session No

THE JUDICIARY OF TANZANIA IN THE HIGH COURT OF UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA AT KIGOMA MURDER NO. 000019560 OF 2024 REPUBLIC .............................. COMPLAINANT / APPELLANT / APPLICANT VERSUS EDSON PHILIMON OMBE .............................. RESPONDENT / DEFENDANT JUDGMENT KAHYOZA, J The two accused persons, namely, Edson Philimon and Sedekia Juma, the first and second accused persons respectively, are arraigned before this court for the offence of murder contrary to sections 196 and 197 of the Penal Code, CAP 16 R. E. 2022. It is the prosecution’s case that on the 16th day of November, 2023, at Nyamsagara Hamlet within Kiyungwe Village in Kasuslu District, the accused persons did murder one John Makoye. The accused persons pleaded not guilty to the offence they stand charged with. The prosecution has teamed up with a number of six witnesses in order to prove the offence charged. The testimony of these witnesses can conveniently be summarised as follows. PW1, Amani Nachani, a medical officer stationed at Kitanga Health Centre within Kasulu District in Kigoma region. He told the court that on 16/11/2023 during day hours while at work at Kitanga Health Centre, he was instructed by police officers to go to Nyamsagara Hamlet within Kisungwe village to examine the body of a person who had been killed and left in the fields. He further told the court that he went to the scene in the company of police officers. He further narrated that at the scene he found the body lying on the ground, facing down. He was informed by the father of the deceased that the deceased was one John Makoye. He then examined the body. He told the court that upon examination he found out that the body had two wounds, one at the chest and another one at the back (spinal code). He was of the view that the wounds suggested that they were inflicted by using a sharp object. He also told the court that from his observations, he concluded that the death of the deceased was due to hypovolemic shock (loss of blood). The PW1 tendered exhibit PE1, the post mortem examination report. PW2 Samweli Makoye, told the court that on the fateful day, he and his brother, the deceased, were taking the cows for grazing in the fields. Then suddenly as they passed near the shamba of the first accused person, both the first and second accused persons emerged from the nearby bushes run towards them with the intention of attacking Page. 1 Hon... PROJESTUS KAHYOZA them. According to PW2 both accused persons were armed with weapons, the first accused holding a spear and a machete while the second accused held a machete. It is further testimony of the PW2 that upon seeing that situation, he hit the second accused person in the head using a stick he was holding. In the meantime, the deceased also hit the first accused person in the head using a stick he was holding. That caused the two accused persons to sustain injuries and they were bleeding. The PW2 further told the court that upon the accused persons learning that they had been overpowered, they raised alarm seeking for help. According to PW2 about eight people responded by coming to the scene and joined forces with the accused persons in attacking PW2 and the deceased. It is PW2’s testimony that with the number increasing, he and the deceased were overpowered. He further said that he saw the second accused person fall down the deceased, while the first accused person stubbed the deceased on the chest and at his back. This caused the deceased to lie down motionless with blood spilling out. He also told the court that he was cut on his left hand by one woman while the second accused person cut him with a machete on the head and that he lost a lot of blood due to those injuries. On the part of PW3, Masaaru Deo, he told the court that on the material day he was on the way from Nyamsagara to Kitanga Village. On the way, specifically at the area known as Povu within Nyamsagara hamlet, he saw the PW2. On approaching him, the PW2 told them that they had been attacked by the accused persons, that is, Edson Philimon and Sedekia Juma. The PW3 learnt that the PW2 was wounded, bleeding and was looking for assistance. The PW3 who was in the company of Jackson Busweru, stopped and assisted the Pw2 by giving him sort of first aid. He wrapped PW2’s head with his sweater to prevent further bleeding. Pw3 further told the court that, after that exercise, PW3 showed them the deceased who was lying on the ground some metres away. He was in a critical condition. On seeing that situation, PW3 called the father of the deceased by phone and informed him of what had befallen his children. He also passed the information to other people who came within a span of half an hour. In the meantime, he passed the information to police, who late came at the scene. PW3 also told the court that the PW2 was taken to Kitanga Health Centre for medical attention. PW4, G 2171 D/CPL Suleiman told the court that he was instructed by the OC-CID to go to Nyamsagara Hamlet to follow up on the information relating to the death of one John Makoye. He further said that he prepared an order for post mortem examination of the body, picked the PW1 and the went to the scene together with other police officers. It was his further testimony that at the scene, the body was identified by the relatives including the PW5, the father of the deceased and PW2. He also told the court that the place was inspected, but there were no weapons around. He further told the court that the medical officer, PW1, examined the body and noted all his findings. The PW4 also told the court that he prepared a sketch map of the scene of crime, exhibit PE2. It was his further testimony that after that exercise he went to Kitanga health centre where the accused persons were receiving medical treatment because they had sustained injuries in the heads. The PW4 then arrested them and took them to police station, and kept them under custody. PW5, Makoye Lubizagula, told the court that he was called over the phone by PW3 who informed that his children, that is PW2 and the deceased had been attacked. Then he rushed to the scene. There he found the deceased lying on the ground, with face facing down. He was also informed that the PW2 had been taken to hospital. He further told the court that while at the scene, there came police officers together with PW1, the medical officer. It was his Page. 2 Hon... PROJESTUS KAHYOZA further evidence that the medical officer examined the body and confirmed that he was dead. He also told the court that the PW4 prepared a sketch map of the scene of crime and that he personally signed it. He further told the court that after that exercise, the body of his son, the deceased, was handed to him for burial. The last prosecution witness, that is, PW6, was G.3962 D/CPL Juma. PW6 told the court that on 16/11/2023 during morning hours he was instructed by SP Haji, the OC CID to go to Kitanga Village to investigate the murder of John Makoye. He further told the court that he went to the scene in the company of other police officers. At the scene he learnt that the deceased was murdered in the shamba of the first accused; and the said shamba bordered two shambas of other people, namely, Farida and Abel. He further told the court that at around 15:00hrs, he went to Kitanga Health Centre so as to record the statement of PW2 It was his further testimony that, on 17/11/202023 he was assigned a case file by the OC CID, with reg. No. KGT/IR/30/2023 relating to the murder of John Makoye. From the file records, he learnt that the suspects were in police custody, and that they are the accused persons in this case. PW6 further told the court that he interrogated the accused persons, but they denied their involvement in the killing of the deceased; but admitted that they were at the scene where the killing occurred. PW6 also told the court that the accused persons had head injuries each. PW6 further told the court that on that same day around 16:00hrs he went to Kabanga Hospital to record the statement of the PW 2 who was admitted there. It was his further testimony that PW2 had head injury seemingly inflicted by using a sharp object. PW6 also told the court that he was told by the PW2 that he was attacked and wounded by the accused persons who also killed the deceased. PW6 further told the court the in the course of investigation, he also recorded the statement of PW3. PW6 also added that both accused persons were arrested at Kitanga Health Centre where they were receiving medical treatment due to the injuries each had sustained in the head. PW6 concluded that both accused person were at the scene when the deceased was murdered. With the closure of the prosecution’s case, the accused persons were called upon to enter their respective defence. The first accused person, Edison Philimon, who testified as DW1 categorically disassociated himself with the murder of John Makoye, the deceased. He told the court that all the witnesses who linked him with the murder of Jonh Makoye had told lies. He further told the court that he did not know the place known as Nyamsagara, and that he has never been to that place; and that he does not own a shamba at Nyamsagara but does his farming at Tubiko. He further told that court on 16/11/2023 he was at home with his family, and not at Nyamsagara. He also told the court that he was arrested while at the market, and not at the hospital. The second accused person, Sedekia Juma, testified as DW2. Like the first accused person he also disassociated with the killing of John Makoye. He told the court that he did not know the deceased ant that he has never been to the scene of crime. He further told the court that on 16/11/2023 he was at home with his children and that he was not arrested on that day. But when cross examined, he told the court that he was arrested on 21/11/2023 when he was coming from watching a football match. But he equally told the court that he was arrested on 20/11/2023. He was also recorded telling the court that on 16/11/2023 he was coming from Kigage village, on a motorcycle together with one Toma and that he got an accident causing him to sustain injuries. Page. 3 Hon... PROJESTUS KAHYOZA Briefly put, this is the summary of the entire evidence from both the prosecution and the defence. I shall now proceed to decide on all important questions arising from this matter, a homicide case. Perhaps it is important to note at this juncture that his being a murder case, like any other criminal case, the prosecution is required to prove it beyond reasonable doubt. This is the standard of proof in criminal cases. See Thobias Michael Kitavi v. The Republic, (CAT), Criminal Appeal No. 31 of 2017 at page 14, where the Court observed: - “It is settled law that the prosecution is under the duty to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and the accused is only required in his defence to raise reasonable doubt on the prosecution's case.” In the case at hand, the prosecution is supposed to prove the following:- one, the death of John Makoye, the deceased; two, this being a murder case, that the death was not a natural death; three, that the cause of death was due to unlawful act or omission; four, that it was the accused persons who killed the deceased, John Makoye; and five, that the accused persons killed the deceased with malice afore thought. As to the death of John Makoye, the evidence on record clearly explains and without leaving any slightest flicker of doubt that John Makoye is/was dead. PW2 was at the scene of crime. He told the court that he saw the first accused person stub the deceased at the chest and on the spinal cord which resulted in breaking the spinal cord. This is also supported by the PW3, who upon arriving at the scene, he found the body lying down, motionless. Also, PW4 and PW5 testified to that effect. In addition, PW5 told the court that after the PW1 had completed examining the body, the same was given to him for burial. All this testimony points to one inevitable conclusion that Jon Makoye was dead. On the question as to whether the deceased died a natural death, the evidence on record provides an answer in the negative. But to sum up all, we have the testimony of PW1, the medical officer, Amani Nachani. He told the court that he examined the body by using a stethoscope to check the heartbeats, but there were none. He finally concluded that John Makoye was dead, and that he died due to hypovolemic shock. According to this witness, this was due to serious injuries on the body of the deceased, which suggested that they were inflicted upon him by using a sharp object. Exhibit PE1, the post mortem examination report clearly shows that John Makoye died due to multiple injuries which resulted in loss of blood, thus causing his death. These testimonies in totality clearly establish the death of John Makoye, leaving no doubt at all. As to whether the death was a natural death, the testimony of the PW1, Amani Nachani is prime on this. The PW1 told the court that he examined the body and found that it had multiple cuts, including cuts on the head, on the chest and at the back. The description of the cuts are clearly explained in exhibit PE1, the postmortem examination report of the body of the deceased, which was tendered by PW1. Under the heading RECORD OF OBSERVATIONS, specifically in relation to internal injuries and fractures, exhibit PE1 reads thus: Page. 4 Hon... PROJESTUS KAHYOZA “Fracture at the 4 intercostal space (ribs) fracture at lumbar (2) spinal cord.” Then under the heading ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS, the report (exhibit PE1) reads thus: “Dead body has injury to the right sides of the chest (Ribs) at the 4 intercostal space. Associated with heavy bleeding because its open fracture due to sharp bone injury. Also, dead body has injury at the spinal cord (open fracture at lumbar 2) Associated with heavy bleeding. All of the above explained are the cause of death because the open fracture can lead to hypovolemic shock, dead body lost a lot of blood.” From these observations, the PW1 concluded that the deceased died due to hypovolemic shock, that is, loss of blood. In other words, if not for the loss of blood due to cuts, the deceased could not have met his death. It follows therefore, and I can safely conclude that from the above evidence, the deceased, John Makoye did not die a natural death. With regard to the question as to whether the cause of death of the deceased was due to unlawful act or omission, answer to this question is provided by the finding I have made above. The evidence on record clearly shows that the deceased died due to loss of blood. Such loss of blood was a result of multiple cuts inflicted on the deceased by using a sharp object. This is reflected in the evidence of both PW1and PW2. PW1, Amani Nachani, is a medical officer who examined the body of the deceased. PW2 on the other hand is an eye witness. He was at the scene when the deceased was attacked. From the above evidence, one conclusion is inevitable, that is, the deceased died due to an unlawful act. With that said, I shall now move to discuss the question as to whether it was the accused persons, Edison Philimon Ombe and Sedekia Juma, who killed the deceased, John Makoye. I wish to point out from the outset that according to the evidence adduced by the prosecution, only one witness, that is, PW2, Samweli Makoye, is the sole eye witness. He told the court on how both him and the deceased were attacked by the accused persons when they were driving cows to the grazing areas. He told the court that as they approached the shamba of the first accused, suddenly the accused persons appeared and aggressively advanced towards them with the intention of attacking them. PW2 is also on record telling the court that the first accused person was armed with a spear and a machete, while the second accused person was armed with a machete. PW2 also told the court that it was such an aggressive advance that prompted him to hit the second accuse in the head using a stick in self defence. It is also on record that at the same time, the deceased also hit the first accused with a stick in the head. According to PW2, both accused sustained injuries and were bleeding. Consequently, they raised alarm seeking for help. In response to the alarm raised about eight people came to the aid of the accused persons. It is PW2’s further account that with the assistance of those other people, both him and the deceased were now overpowered. Then, the second accused person fell the deceased on the ground, and the first accused stubbed the deceased on the chest and at the back. On the other hand, the accused persons in their defence, they categorically denied to have had any encounter with both the PW2 and the deceased. The first accused denied to know Nyamsagara hamlet the place where the Page. 5 Hon... PROJESTUS KAHYOZA deceased was killed. He also denied to been to that place. He equally denied to own a shamba at Nyamsagara, but that he owns a shamba at Tubiko. It was also part of his defence that on the material day he was at home and was arrested at the market place and not at Kitanga Health Centre. He also denied to have sustained injuries and that he was never attended by PW1. The second accused like the first accused, he denied to have been at Nyamsagara. He also denied to have been arrested while at Nyamsagara Health Centre. As for injuries, he told the court that he was involved in an accident when he was riding a motorcycle on the way home from Kigagye Village, and that he was with one Toma. I have carefully considered the two versions. I have also subjected them to close scrutiny. In the end I find the version of PW2 containing a true and reliable account of what happened on the fateful day. I have no reason to disbelieve PW2. While testifying, PW2 was stable, firm and confident such that he could be telling nothing but the truth. He told the court that there was a confrontation between him and the deceased on one hand and the accused persons on the other hand. This fact was not controverted in any way. His cross examination on this fact is nothing but an elaboration of how the encounter was. The PW2 also told the court that both him and the deceased hit the accused persons with sticks in their heads thus leading to the accused persons sustaining injuries. This fact too was not controverted during cross examination. This suggests that the accused persons were in agreement with PW2 on this fact. It is now settled, and indeed a cardinal principle in any trial that a fact not controverted is taken to be admitted. This is what was stated by the Court of Appeal in Bomu Mohamed vs Hamisi Amiri (Civil Appeal No. 99 of 2018) [2020] TZCA 29 (27 February 2020) Court observed: “It is trite law that failure to cross- examine a witness on an important matter ordinarily implies the acceptance of the truth of the witness evidence”. We have similar positions in several other cases, see for instance, Daimian Ruhele v. R, Criminal Appeal No. 501 of 2007. In the same parity of reasoning, the Court also observe in Nyerere Nyague v. R, Criminal Appeal No. 67 of 2010 and it had this to say: “It is a matter of principle, a party who fails to cross- examine a witness on a certain matter is deemed to have accepted that matter and will be estopped from asking the trial court to disbelieve what the witness said”. In the same vein, the accused persons are precluded from denying that they were at the scene of crime, and PW1 saw them. But again, PW2 told the court that both accused persons sustained injuries in their heads after they were hit with sticks. This evidence is corroborated by PW1, a medical officer. He told the court that on the same material day, that is on 16/11/2023, the day he examined the body of the deceased, he also received and attended three persons with head injuries. He further stated that two out of those three persons were the accused persons who were in Page. 6 Hon... PROJESTUS KAHYOZA court in the dock. PW1 did not end there. He went as far as identifying the two accused persons in the dock and also spotted a big scar on the head of the fist accused person. This evidence remained unshaken, and corroborated that of PW2. We also find corroboration of PW2’s evidence from that of PW4 G 2171 D/CPL Suleiman. He told the court that he arrested the accused persons at Kitanga Health Centre when they were receiving medical treatment following head injuries they had sustained. But also, the evidence of PW6, G.3962 D/CPL Juma, corroborates that of PW2. PW6 was the investigator in this case. He told the court that the accused persons were arrested at Kitanga Health Centre when they were receiving medical treatment. It is important to note that both PW4 and PW6 were not cross examined on these material facts. This means the accused persons were in agreement with both PW4 and PW6 that they were arrested while at Kitanga Health Centre receiving medical treatment following the head injuries they had sustained. Inversely, this evidence totally erodes the defence story and alibi that the accused persons were not at the scene of crime on the material day. The above evidence taken in totality points to one irresistible conclusion that the accused persons were at the scene of crime, and that they were involved in an encounter with both the deceased and PW2. It also necessarily points to one inevitable conclusion that it was the accused persons who inflicted injuries on the deceased, which injuries led to loss of blood thereby causing his death. As I said earlier, the PW2 was a sole single eye witness. I am acutely aware that the evidence of a single witness in such a serious case must be taken with the greatest care. In Kachukura Nshekanabo @ Kakobeka vs Rep (Criminal Appeal No. 314 of 2015) [2016] TZCA 666 (24 February 2016) the Court of Appeal of Tanzania had this to say when addressing a similar situation. The Court stated: There is always need for testing with greatest care the evidence of a single witness in respect of identification. See also Mburu and Another v. Republic (2008) 1 KLR 1229, R. v. Turnbull (1977) QB 224 and Abdalla bin Wendo v. Rex (1953) 20 EACA 166. I am however satisfied that the identification of the accused persons by the PW2 leaves no room for mistaken identity. This is because the event took place during broad day light. As such conditions for identification were not unfavourable. There is yet another aspect that makes PW2 more credible. He named his assailants at the earliest possible opportunity. He told the court that after all his assailants had left, he gathered himself and moved towards the nearby path. He saw the PW3, asked for help, ant told him that they were attacked by the accused persons, Edson and Sedekia. This is what was observed in the Kachukura Nshekanabo @ Kakobeka vs Rep case (supra). In that case, the Court of Appeal Stated: The ability to name the culprit at the earliest possible moment strengthened the credibility of the witness. We also have a similar observation in Marwa Wangiti Mwita V. Republic (2002) TLR 39. Page. 7 Hon... PROJESTUS KAHYOZA Probably I should say a word on what appears to be a defence of alibi raised by the accused persons. Both accused persons denied to have been at the scene of crime. Each said that he was at home on the date the deceased was killed. In a way, they were pleading the defense of alibi. But the law in relation to the defense of alibi is very clear. It requires a prior notice before one can raise it. But it also leaves it in the discretion of the court to consider such a defense even where no prior notice was issued. Section 194 of the CPA provides that: - 194.- (4) Where an accused person intends to rely upon an alibi in his defence, he shall give to the court and the prosecution notice of his intention to rely on such defence before the hearing of the case. (5) Where an accused person does not give notice of his intention to rely on the defence of alibi before the hearing of the case, he shall furnish the prosecution with the particulars of the alibi at any time before the case for the prosecution is closed. (6) Where the accused person raises a defence of alibi without having first furnished the prosecution pursuant to this section, the court may, in its discretion, accord no weight of any kind to the defence. Now, as far as the accused persons are concerned, none of them gave a prior notice as required by the law. That notwithstanding, however, I have in terms of Section 194(6) of the CPA considered this defence of alibi, but I do not see how it can work in their favour. The evidence adduced by the prosecution clearly shows that the accused persons were at the scene of crime on the day the deceased was murdered. The evidence leaves no room for any other probable explanation. In that case therefore, I shall accord no weight to this defence. With that said, I shall now move to consider the last aspect, that is, whether the accused persons killed the deceased with malice afore thought. The law, that is, the Penal Code clearly provides for the circumstances in which it can be concluded that the act or omission leading to death was done with malice afore thought. Section 200 of the Penal Code, CAP 16 R. E. 2022, is couched in the following words: 200. Malice aforethought shall be deemed to be established by evidence proving any one or more of the following circumstances- (a) an intention to cause the death of or to do grievous harm to any person, whether that person is the person actually killed or not; (b) knowledge that the act or omission causing death will probably cause the death of or grievous harm to some person, whether that person is the person actually killed or not, although that knowledge is accompanied by indifference whether death or grievous bodily harm is caused or not, or by a wish that it may not be caused; (c) an intent to commit an offence punishable with a penalty which is graver than imprisonment for three years; Page. 8 Hon... PROJESTUS KAHYOZA (d) an intention by the act or omission to facilitate the flight or escape from custody of any person who has committed or attempted to commit an offence. As it can be gathered from the above provision, it is imperative that for malice aforethought to exist, there must be an intention from the person who is alleged to have acted with such malice. Now, from what I have discussed above, the entire prosecution evidence clearly shows that death of the deceased was a result of the encounter between the accused persons on one hand, and the PW2 and the deceased, on the other. In other words, death was a result of confrontation or fight that ensued after the PW2 and the deceased drove cows past or near the shamba of the first accused. The prosecution did not lead evidence to show that the killing of the deceased was planed. There was no evidence to show that it was a routine for the PW2 and the deceased to take out cows for grazing through that area (scene of crime) and at that particular time, such that the accused persons would lie in wait at that particular place. Probably what appears to be disturbing, is the kind of weapons the accused persons had. The court was told that the first accused held a spear and a machete while the second accused also had a machete. But I think there is an explanation to this, especially from the prosecution’s witness. PW3 described the place (scene of crime) as a wilderness (pori). In such circumstances, it could not have been uncommon for a person going out for cultivating to equip himself with such weapons. That is why, I think, when confrontation ensued, the first accused did not use the spear he had to attack the deceased. All these events explain the fact that there was no prior intention to kill. From the above discussion, I find it conclusively established that death was a result of a fight that ensued between the accused persons and the deceased as well as PW2. The conclusion is therefore that there was no malice aforethought on the part of the accused persons. It is now settled law that when death occurs as a result of a fight, the offence committed is one of manslaughter, and not murder. We have a litany of authorities on this. See for instance Nicodem Daudi vs Republic (Criminal Appeal 528 of 2015) [2016] TZCA 631 (5 August 2016). See also Moses Chichi v. The Republic [1994] TLR 222. In this case the Court held among other things that: “Where death occurs as a result of a fight an accused person should be found guilty of the lesser offence of manslaughter and not murder”. We have also similar positions by the Court of Appeal in Israel Misezero @ Manani v. the Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 117 of 2006 and Zuberi Abdalla v. the Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 144 of 1991. Now, having found and held that death was a result of a fight, I proceed to find the two accused persons, namely, Edson Philimon Ombe and Sedekia Juma guilty of a lesser offence of manslaughter, in terms of sections 195(1) and 198 of the Penal Code, CAP. 16 R. E. 2022, and I accordingly convict them forthwith. Page. 9 Hon... PROJESTUS KAHYOZA P. R. Kahyoza, Judge. 06/11/2024 Previous record of the accused person and the aggravating factors. Mr. Dickson Makongo, SA: We have no previous criminal record in respect of the two accused persons. We however propose a serious and deterrent punishment for the following reasons: 1. The accused persons do not seem to be remorseful for the act they did. They told lies before the court, and as such they are not entitled to a lenient sentence. In Yusuph Ismael vs Rep. Criminal Appeal No.623/2021 CAT, at Mtwara, the Court held that telling lies would be one of the aggravating factors in sentencing the accused. 2. The weapons used. They used a spear and a machete. These were dangerous weapons. Moreover, even the areas targeted, were fragile areas. This suggests ill intention on the part of the accused persons. 3. If at all the deceased and PW2 had wronged them, they ought to have taken legal measures and not to take the law into their hands. That is all. Mitigating Factors: Mr. Hamis Kimilomilo, Advocate for the accused persons: The accused persons have no criminal record in the society. They are first offenders. They never intended to commit the offence. The accused are young men. They are needed by the society and the nation as a whole for their contributions. The first accused has a wife and three children all of whom depend on him for a living. Equally, the second accused person has a wife and six children all of whom depend on him. Moreover, both accused persons have parents who depend on them for a living. In addition, the accused have been in jail for two years now. They are now remorseful. We, for these reasons, pray for a lenient sentence, including being discharged. That is all. Page. 10 Hon... PROJESTUS KAHYOZA SENTENCE In sentencing the two accused persons I have taken into account all the circumstances surrounding this case. I have carefully considered both the aggravating factors as well as the mitigating factors. This includes the time the accused persons have stayed behind the bars. I have also taken note of the sentence provided by the law. Section 198 of the provides life sentence for the offence of manslaughter. From the evidence adduced, the offence committed is manslaughter of high level. To put it differently, it is manslaughter bordering murder. This is by looking at the weapons used and the areas of the body targeted, the chest and spinal code. In terms of the Tanzania Sentencing Guidelines, 2023, manslaughter of high level, is punishable with the minimum sentence of ten years imprisonment up to life imprisonment. Now, having considered all these factors, I hereby sentence each of the accused persons to twenty years imprisonment. P. R. Kahyoza, Judge. 06/12/2024 Court: Right of appeal to the Court of Appeal is duly explained to the accused persons. Dated at KIGOMA this 6th of December 2024 . P. R KAHYOZA JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT Page. 11 Hon... PROJESTUS KAHYOZA