Download PDF

Tanzania Judgment

TZCA

20001201 TZCA Mwanza

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The appellant unequivocally pleaded guilty to the charge of armed robbery after the charge and facts were read and explained to him, and the sentence imposed was the statutory minimum; therefore, the appeal was properly rejected and is dismissed.

Court disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • appeal dismissed in its entirety

02

Material facts

Parties

Curthbert s/o Nchilu

Appellant

The Republic

Respondent Counsel: Mr. Feleshi

Amounts and remedies

  • Term of Imprisonment: 30

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Criminal Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The appellant argued that his plea of guilty was equivocal and that the charge of armed robbery was not established.
Respondent
The respondent argued that the appeal was devoid of merit because the appellant unequivocally pleaded guilty and the sentence imposed was lawful and the minimum prescribed by law.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Section 360(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1985

    No appeal shall be allowed in the case of any accused person who has been convicted on their own plea of guilty.

  2. 02

    Minimum Sentences Act, 1972 as amended by Act No. 10 of 1989

    The minimum sentence for armed robbery is prescribed by law.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The appellant unequivocally pleaded guilty to the charge of armed robbery after the charge and facts were read and explained to him, and the sentence imposed was the statutory minimum; therefore, the appeal was properly rejected and is dismissed.

Court disposition

appeal dismissed

  • appeal dismissed in its entirety

Source and reliance status

TZCA · 1 December 2000

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

TZCA

Judgment· 1 December 2000

20001201 TZCA Mwanza

.,,.,. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA

AT MWANZA (CORAM: KISANGA, J .A., LUBUVA, U,..,._.c.-. J .A.,-.rAnd -----•--~•,....,,._,_,..,..,,,,:r111;..-'lt;..... LUGAICTNGIRA, J .A.) . . . .--,..._. _ _ _ ,..,,,...,. -,..,._..,... ~"~.._..-""""~-" ~•~ CRIMINAL APPEAL NO .. 208 OF 1994

BETWEEN CURI'HBERT s/o NCHILU DOOO COC\()() 000 000 00000 APPELLANT AND THE REPUBLIC oootiCoOC\cooooooooaoooocoooo RESPONDENT (Appeal from the Order of the High Court of Tanzania at Mwanza) (fl~iE:_!a,__g_ ~) dated the 14th October, 1994 in

JUDGMENT In the District Court of Kwimba at Ngudu, the appellant was charged·with the offence of armed robbery contrary to sections 285 and 286 of the Penal Codeo On 30.10.1992 the charge was read over and explained to the appellant who pleaded guilty to the chargeo He was_found guilty and accordingly convicted. He was sentenced to 30 years term of imprisonment4 On appeal to the High Court against conviction and sentence, the appeal was summarily rejected. The learned judge was satisfied that the appellant's plea of guilty was unequivocal. Still dissatisfied, the appellant has appealed to this Court. From his lengthy memorandum of appeal, he raises two important points. First, that his plea of guilty was equivocal and secondly ,. : that the charge of armed robbery was not established., At the hearing of the appeal the appella!Jt appeared in person .. Apart from pleading to the Court to assist him in ensuring that justice is done to him according to the law he did not have anything - 2 .. useful to add to what he had written in the memorandum of appealo For the respondent Republic Mr. Feleshi, learned State Attorney appeared. He submitted to the effect that the appeal is devoid of any merit because the appellant uneqµivocally pleaded guiltyo Furthermore, he stated, as regards sentence there is nothing illegal about it, the law prescribes a minimum of 30 years term of

imprisonmento We agree with Mro Feleshi that this appeal is devoid of any merito From the record it is clear that the appellant unequivocally pleaded guilty to the charge of armed robberyo On 3001001992, the charge was read over and explained to the appellanto When asked to plead, he pleaded in these terms: Hit is true I robbed all those thingso ri That was not the end of it, the facts were then set out detailing the sequence of events and the various items stolen in the course of the robbery as listed in the charge sheet. After outlining the facts the appellant responded in these words: 1 have heard all the facts stated by the P.Po •1 I admit them all as being correcto" From these facts, we are satisfied that the learned judge cannot be faulted in his decision to reject the appeal summarilyo There is no doubt whatsoever that the appellant unequiv0·eally pleaded guilty to the charge when it was read out to him, explained and the facts statedo We have no reason to doubt that he understood what was read out and explained to himo The appellant's complaint at this stage that the plea was equivocal is nothing but an afterthought~ In the circumstances of the case, we think the appeal was properly rejected in terms of the provisions of section 360 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, 19850 Under this section it is provided to the effect that no appeal shall be allowed in the case of any

accused person who has been convicted on such a pleao This case squarely feJ.. ls within the purview of this section. - 3 - As regards sentence, there is no legal issue raised about it in the memorandum of appeal. The sentence imposed is the minimum prescribed under the Minimum Sentences Act, 1972 as amended by Act Nao 10 of 1989. A gun was used in the course of the robbery and so the appellant was properly sentenced for the offence of armed robbery. In the event, the appeal is dismissed in its entirety. DATED at MWANZA this 1st day of December, 2000. Ro H. KISANGA

JUSTICE OF APPEAL D. Zo LUBUVA

JUSTICE OF APPEAL K.S.K. LUGAKINGIRA

JUSTICE OF APPEAL I certify that this is a true copy of the original. ('\ .. ' ~f-{,(,.,u q fJ_, 1 M.t M\r!AIKU'cfILE

SENIOR DEPUTY REGISTRAR

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Penal Code sections 285 and 286

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Criminal Procedure Act, 1985 section 360(1)

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Minimum Sentences Act, 1972 as amended by Act No. 10 of 1989

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.