20180321 TZHC Dar es Salaam1
- Citation
- 20180321 TZHC Dar es Salaam1
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Court
- TZHC
- Decision
- 21 March 2018
- Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- TZHC
- Decision
- 21 March 2018
- Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The sentence imposed by the trial court was illegal as it did not comply with the statutory provisions; the applicant, being a first offender and having been in the country for only two days, deserved leniency.
Court disposition
Application allowed; illegal sentence set aside.
Orders
- Illegal sentence imposed by the trial court is set aside.
- Applicant to be released forthwith from prison unless held for other lawful causes.
- Prison department to surrender applicant to Immigration department for further action under Immigration laws.
02
Material facts
Parties
Erick Kabanga
ApplicantRepublic
Respondent Counsel: Miss MasueAmounts and remedies
- Statutory Fine for Offence: TZS 100,000
- Statutory Maximum Imprisonment: years 3
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the sentence imposed by the trial court was illegal under the Immigration Act
- 02
Whether the applicant deserved leniency as a first offender
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant sought revision of the proceedings and judgment of the Kisutu Resident Magistrates' Court, arguing that the sentence imposed was illegal.
- Respondent
- The respondent, through Miss Masue, conceded that the sentence was illegal and argued that the law provides for a fine or imprisonment, and the applicant deserved leniency as a first offender who had been in the country for only two days.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Immigration Act, Section 31(2)
Section 31(2) of the Immigration Act provides for a sentence of a fine of Shs. 100,000 or imprisonment of 3 years for unlawful presence.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The sentence imposed by the trial court was illegal as it did not comply with the statutory provisions; the applicant, being a first offender and having been in the country for only two days, deserved leniency.
Obiter and limits
- The court could not understand why the trial court imposed such a hefty punishment.
Court disposition
Application allowed; illegal sentence set aside.
- Illegal sentence imposed by the trial court is set aside.
- Applicant to be released forthwith from prison unless held for other lawful causes.
- Prison department to surrender applicant to Immigration department for further action under Immigration laws.
Source and reliance status
TZHC · 21 March 2018
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· 21 March 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA (DAR ES SALAAM DISTRICT REGISTRY)
AT DAR ES SALAAM CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 23 OF 2017 (Originating from Criminal Case No. 373/2016 Kisutu Resident Magistrate) ERICK KABANGA ............................... APPLICANT
VERSUS _REPUBLIC .......................-.........-.....- . ... RESPONDENT-- ·- - RULING: The applicant Erick Kabanga has preferred the present application seeking this court's intervention to revise the proceedings and judgment of Kisutu Resident Magistrates' Court which imposed an illegal sentence on him after he pleaded guilty to the offence of unlawful presence in the Country contrary to Section 31 ( 1) & (2) of the Immigration Act. Miss. Masue, learned State Attorney who appeared for the Republic conceded to the application on the ground that the sentence imposed on the applicant was illegal. She argued that the provisions of S.31 (2) of the Immigration Act provide for the sentence of a fine of Shs. 100,000/= or imprisonment of 3 years. I have given du<:: consideration to the applicant's application. I have no doubt the sentence imposed was illegal. From the record, applicant pleaded guilty to the offence and there is nothing to show that he had entered the country prior to this offence, he thus deserved lenience as a first offender. Miss Masue was of the view that applicant deserved leniency because the evidence presented showed that he had been in the country for hardly two days. I subscribe fully to Miss. Masue's views. 1 I have not been able to understand why the trial court imposed such a hefty punishment. All considered I set aside the illegal sentence imposed by the
trial court. Accordingly, I will impose a sentence that will lead to the immediate release of the applicant from prison. In view of the nature of the offence that he was convicted with, let the prison's department surrender him to the Immigration department to be dealt with according to Immigration laws. He is otherwise to be released forthwith from prison unless there are other lawful causes. / J 2
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.