19830715 TZHC Mbeya3
There was no evidence the appellant employed any fraud to secure the allowance; her name was included on the payroll by the owner, and she received payment accordingly. She cannot be guilty of theft under these circumstances.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 19830715 TZHC Mbeya3
- Parties
- Appellant: Elina Inunu; Respondent: The Republic
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 15 July 1983
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- conviction quashed
- Legal Topics
- Theft, Appeal, Student Allowances
- Source Language
- english
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Elina Inunu
Appellant
The Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellant was guilty of theft for receiving student allowance after ceasing to be a student
Ratio Decidendi
There was no evidence the appellant employed any fraud to secure the allowance; her name was included on the payroll by the owner, and she received payment accordingly. She cannot be guilty of theft under these circumstances.
Court Disposition
conviction quashed
Orders
- Appellant acquitted
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
ML IN THE HIGH COURT OF TAiI4 T 1iBEYA PLiTE JURISDICTION - (Mbeya Registry) • CflvIi\L PPhL.NO. 31 OF 3.981 ORIGINAL CRBdLILL C ii SE NO. 37 OF 17 OF THE DISTRICT OQTJRT .QJ JULLA DICP AT KYELA Before. P. B Iiponzi, Esq,, I)istricta..mt. ELIN2I IN1JNU ,. * ., .. 1/RS1JS THE REPUBLIC . .. ,,• •,, ____ Theft contrary to ction 265 of ta1 Cc1e <ap. 16. a JVDGIiENT VMN ~ YERA I The 'appeL aLt con3.oc1 by Kyela 1ui4*.ric. s,O/= proprty o Ccvrr.. t eitnü o 3 year imprisonment. It was in v•inoe - nct sh stdt In a Kajan.uine1e Schoci si:.c /. /76. hu wa coqp1ete. a three year course ai 3. bcu oi.. 3• xi TJIE teacheD U1977, by he )atter dated 6/1/77, Si1 j.tc it of the couEt It was a x iiie that 3ti0entI , w.reaid Shs.15(/- p.. tocket LOr13T 1e peUnt alaq u4 to be pai ,d that aflovance. In harch, 1977, Pau 1caukws PL) discovered th-t the appellant had roe eivJ wance for an February, 197 7 , Shs,150/= per Lonth (tota' .oO/=) ,heahe was no longer P. student in that school. H ;poed and th wa a oei In her defence :she argued that had b 1boh ahd told that the money for.. t he wo rk hey had dOItM 14 UtiVea o .JW went and found hé name on thd 1is and Dee4. The trial court rejected her defence and .czvicted hex. Thi was an unfornate case for the. appellant# can a. person be guilty of theft of the by the owner? There was overv,helinng Lvldenoe from the pro8 U o4J4e tq the effect that the appe1lnt S name was in61ude on th.p1. There wa s no evidence that she Liployedny frauds to seGur&th The QLls v.o prepard the p yrol ai tho ei ted the did not t :• - eeUant.