19921102 TZHC Mwanza 1
- Citation
- 19921102 TZHC Mwanza 1
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Court
- TZHC
- Decision
- 2 November 1992
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- TZHC
- Decision
- 2 November 1992
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The evidence established the appellants' guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The sentence imposed was within the statutory limits and took into account the seriousness of the offence.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Conviction and sentence upheld
- Appeals dismissed in entirety
02
Material facts
Parties
Damusi Kamanda
Appellant Counsel: Mr. BentalwaHamisi Mwalimu
Appellant Counsel: Mr. BentalwaLloyd Maru
Appellant Counsel: Mr. BentalwaThe Republic
RespondentAmounts and remedies
- Sentence Imprisonment Years: 7
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the conviction of the appellants for breaking into a building and committing a felony was proper
- 02
Whether the sentence imposed was lawful and appropriate
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Appellants challenged both conviction and sentence, arguing the evidence was insufficient and the sentence excessive.
- Respondent
- Respondent maintained the conviction was proper and the sentence was within the law.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Penal Code, section 297 and 380
Conviction for breaking into a building and committing a felony is proper if evidence establishes the offence beyond reasonable doubt.
- 02
Minimum Sentences Act, 1972; Criminal Procedure Act, 1985
Sentencing for scheduled offences must comply with the Minimum Sentences Act, 1972 and Criminal Procedure Act, 1985.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The evidence established the appellants' guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The sentence imposed was within the statutory limits and took into account the seriousness of the offence.
Obiter and limits
- Had it not been for the vigilance of the watchman, a lot of property could have been lost.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed
- Conviction and sentence upheld
- Appeals dismissed in entirety
Source and reliance status
TZHC · 2 November 1992
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.
TZHC
Judgment· 2 November 1992
1--h b-t-1 TIT TJ:J TIIGH cot.m OF T::n3~1TL1 .:'.T I.fT..'lNZL ·no:: COTJJ.T CRIH]}L',I, }..?rJ~:.:J:., NO. G OF 1992 (CF) ID/cn/,".P.P.No.a 434 OF 1991 (Oric;in:.,l Cr:i.raincl Cas0 No.534 of 1991 o:f the District Court of Hv.s6mn. District n.t i'Iusor.m,. J.xfo1·0 r.I.J • · Lugo.zi31c1, :':sq. Rosid~mt ·Magistr do). 2.D1l)..'US IC.:'.:l1.::JD!l,::::l =mo • • • •-mo ~·.1,1...I.:."-)U.L 1•J.v1'[•:..t'·S-J..L l• • • • • • o • • • • o • o o • c o o o ~ • .., . ,. ,. . !-1\ml .1.~ J. ~.:i.J.J.l.J.-..1.'4.L (0-c':l.c,':i.n~~l Locuscd) S t 3. IL'l.oID ].;JlRU . versus TIT;::; fu.."'?UTILIC ( O:dGincl Prosecutor) JUJ)GM:::l;NT cont:c::ixy to coction 297 c..nd 380 of the ~cn--:.J. G0·lo. Tho paJticuJ.n.i•s of t~10 ch:::r[sc o.llccc:d t]:··-~ on or 2-lJot:ct: ~-- tho 22nd of' SoptJnbcr 1991 c..t 14.45 hrno at tho :::?.c,:::;ion;.,1 Stoxcc, I-io.,jitc. Rond wi. ti.lu.11 . 1'.1usoma 1 I 01m::i1.11p,· J.n T . . . . 'f ,., • ha..rn. _;_,.ogion t; ..1oy n:;;'t or.1pt od· J.l,o ,orccc l ~.-nc.1 on 01~, t the st'..id :!.legibm,l Sto::x> t)JpoUGh tho roof u:i:t;: intont to co1:1:1it ._, fc1on3, thoroj_n. 1..t [ho end of .,chc · t:ric.,l the n.ppcll<'.nt o uoro convicted 2.0 sent enc od to 'l'hcy ~ci 110,r 2.:1._)j_)Oa..lil'lG c.cainst both convict~.on ~..nd sentonco.~- Tho , l 2l1d ond 3r(l :-,ppoJ.lnnt s ucro ::_•;.::Je-~oc!1t od lJy r1r • Ilc.ntuJ.n.lci lc<'Z'nocl Couns·Ji" The J.r_;t
~~:P~Olln.nt ~-::.:.i/l_ i'iJ. ·'c! ~,::.:::: ovm ]_)Ctition _of' 2.:9]_)onl c.11.d J.J.o c1id not 1rit:.i to :.).U p:rcsont c.t t!10 hcc;cinc; of the awocJ.. The ._......... I I 1. L ... 2 Hr. BcntuJ.v..ld., a.t the stnrt of th: I2u,,:d11c of tho r..1J11c~J.,· withdrew. tho 1st groU11cl ho hc.d filed in r ::spoct of t.:1.0 2nc1_ c..nd 3rd C.J)poll.:-..nts on the cvidonc,i 1-u-opor a.nd lWll :fotmd0d. lce,ruly n.nd in tho cii:'otnotnncos of the cnso.,. ITc thus invited the coui..-t to int orf Cl.' trit h it• I have perused encl oon::ii(lCrod tho cv::i.dcmoo on rcoord ~ cJ.;I. tho .:i].')polln.ntot groundo of n:p1,cn.1 2.s ,•~oll L'C Con1s0ls'sullrnisoions,. nnd I am of. the settled 011inion thn.t tho conv:i.ct1.on of tJ11J tJ.rrco a,11p<ll.ants uc..s p:i:-op0r cmd. well founc.lc<l. T)1c cvicl.cncc• to;.1clc::_,cd did in ny view cstablii On scntonco,- fi':-Gt t~10 offence foJ.' 1~!.:icl: the o,p:pollr..).'ltG wcro convicto~ for icr c., oohodtt1cd offence in t(:,:-::is of pc:ir:.::,.·crih 12 of tho , lot sc:.1cdulo to tl10 lli.niour.1 SontonccG ~\ct, 197::1, ~ ......... 1n·oc..kincr into n 1JUilding cmd coru::iittin{s' :_:, ~"oJ.onf tho:;:-cin, contrc,ry to section 296 of ·tlw I>ona1 Code being c oc:.,odu.lod offonoc · in terms ./ of 11c.rnc,rn.ph 6 of thq scid 1st f.lchcdulo to tho ;.Iinir:nm Scn.tcnoos /:ct, 197. . Tho trial Ooui'.'t t ;_10roforo l.12..d pourn:> in t c:.:•r,10
of Sect ion 170 ( 1) (a..) of tho Criminal 1'1:'o0otll.r-:-c .:ict, 1985 to in1101Jo Be~1tonco not c:;:coodj_nc.- o:i.cf1t yonrs. The offonc? undOJ-:- aection 297 o.-.'..l':dcs a rn¢our.1 scntonco of 14 yor.rs imp.i.'isonr.1ent. In, j_n:rosing t210 sentence of 7 yon:rs inprisonmont · tl.10 trial cou:rt tool: into. nccount tho :JCj:fousncos of the offcnco fo:t' 1rhicl1 thcjr wore conv:i.ctoc'l. Ind.cocl it u~'.s :~.nd ;,.c,c1 it not been for t:'.l.o ........... .... • "-,,I .. - -· •• I vic;:U,:mcc of Jc::.<; uc.:bc::u:,,:.n, ::~ lot o:i:' provc::-ty could :::.,:wo boon lost •. an inclined to t210 viow, it is not so o:·o.-:rn:d.vo r:.s to wr'.rr::mt tho within the compotonco of t:~.c trial Court t,, :in::::ioso 0 The sc:ntcmco is acoord.itigly UJ.)hold and ,con:firra,1;; In th0 end. result these a:P1,eaJ.s fr.~il ancl they aro dismissed in their cntiTe~y• l!ppoaJ. dismissed• i ..J Delivered on this 2nd da3r of }frno1:111or 1992· in tho :r;xroscnco / At Mw-a.nza., 2nd November, 1992.•. ,,.._ ,,,,,_ -..._~ .·- ·,·,:, ~-' '! ,. ,._.,,,. '""' /-:r-, f ,,, ' t - : I• . • \. i'
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.