Download PDF

Tanzania Judgment

TZCA

19890419 TZCA Bukoba

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The conviction was upheld because the evidence, including the appellant's confession and identification of the stolen property, established guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant's attempt to repudiate his confession was rejected as an afterthought, and the sentence imposed was within statutory limits and justified by the prevalence of the offence.

Court disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • conviction and sentence upheld

02

Material facts

Parties

Fulgence Basimaki

Appellant

The Republic

Respondent Counsel: Malejshn, State Attorney

Amounts and remedies

  • Sentence: years 9

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The appellant denied involvement in the offence, claimed he was not present, and argued his confession was made under duress to save his life.
Respondent
The State supported the conviction and sentence, arguing the evidence established guilt beyond reasonable doubt and the confession was not challenged at trial.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    general criminal law

    A conviction must be based on evidence establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

  2. 02

    case law and criminal procedure

    A confession not challenged at trial is presumed voluntary unless proven otherwise.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The conviction was upheld because the evidence, including the appellant's confession and identification of the stolen property, established guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant's attempt to repudiate his confession was rejected as an afterthought, and the sentence imposed was within statutory limits and justified by the prevalence of the offence.

Obiter and limits

  • The prevalence of cattle theft in the area justifies stern sentencing to protect innocent lives and government revenue.

Court disposition

appeal dismissed

  • conviction and sentence upheld

Source and reliance status

TZCA · 19 April 1989

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· 19 April 1989

19890419 TZCA Bukoba

1 IN .L.'IIE TIIGH COUR ...1 0::::1 :£1.A?ZAi.'HA Ai BUKOBA HC. CRINrnAL J1f?EAL Nao 33 OF 1994 (Or,-iginal Criminal Case Ifoo 222 of 1992 at Bukoba) Beforei CoS• BILL~EA, Esq.,, RESDJEXh1 MJ1.GIS.t.1RAl1E., FULG:1.'JC:C B,ASII,i,f.11(.1 • o • • ,o o o_ o o o • o • • • o • • o • o o JI.Pl'ELLAN'.i.1 versus .illE REFU:B LI C RESFmrnDi 'J..1 JUDGMZN'.i.1 IvlAS.ANClIE 2 Jg 'lhe· appellant Fulgrnce Ba..sirn~i, was charged on tm counts. He w:as cha:rgea_, on first count, wHh o·,)·'.:aining money by Zalse pretenses c/s 302:·of the:-Pmal Gode. On this one, :-h2 was convicted and se;.1tenced_-_ to:-s~en y~ars.::.imprisonment. _-__-_ On ~:1e second count, that of t.'leH., he wa;J.-acquittod. :ilie o.ppellant--:is a~{gr.ieved and appeals to tl'.:is Court; 1-':r. Ebago,- the learned Sta·::e:A-~·::on!ey has supported_both conviction a,."lc:. sa:.~:ence,:.. on this, fir§·~ counto 'i'b.e facts of..the case are no·t in a '..::errible dispute.,_ ~ :tl1e ax,ella.nt, former polic<'.!man, on lC/12/91, we:1.t -'.:o - Barahiah:·.A;n:rani, PWo1, and told this PW .. 1 iliat he (appe:'.lant) llad.::.a.-:-mo-~01~ycle he was.:-selling.;; lle ·::.old tl1e complainent:- - that t.'1e mo·'.:ox cycle, -wi:1'.J.1 Regis-~ra-do;:1 No. :1-Z 7341s war:: at the ELC'.1.1 ( :tl1e Eva11gelical Lu.-:)i-:cra11 Chu;rc:,r o:f :.:'a_r1s2:'lia)::,gro1..n2d.s here in IluJ.co;)a, .: ~lie ar,i:;ella':1 :·. soi1-~-- ·'J_;_c

co1:1pl.::.i::.:.ant and cleve:rly -to:t:d a s:torekcepez, a·c -U1e compound, ·'.:,o ope:.1 a oon~c::iner. Indeed. tl1e containr containecl motor cycle. .1.'b.e:-a:_:.,pclla.:J.t poifiJ~ed at: a r.io'..o:::- .;:,cycle saying ·fr,a-:.: it was the one U'..at beJ.o;.1gccl. ~o him (appellci1t) and one::whic.b. he 1-1ouJ.cl sell to ·::he com:)lainaii.·~. :ihe a,p)ell.:1,::.1-t.::.said-=- tha.t to onls meeded shs. J00,ooo/= .for it. &c coE1plai:,.ant parted with ·(;].is t:oney 2n Eichibit P1 shows g 2:i.e chit (Rii:11 oP1) reads: ttFrom Fulgence Basiri1aki '.i.10 llamran . Nimepokea shso 300,000/= lalci tatu }8ui:ok2, kwa Bwana HamI'an bia ajili Ye. kushug;iulikia pikipiki, liontla XL 400 cc, 1Z. 73417 a.mba:·o nimeitenda huko ELC'.1.1• Hara Bodi ya ·Lenda. ikimaliza kunikabidhi nLampat.iQ. yeye 11 signedn .. 2 In his defence r.t tho tr-ic-.1 9 tho ::p?ellent denied to t 2.ve boon involved in the commission of this offence. I:::o contended thr. t ho wcs out o~ "4 WJ~k 2,nd uo r;1ot the so,.rch pc.rty. Tllo;r t,sked him whether ho hed seen people rw.mine 'J.W2.y r:nd he replied in tho 2,Zfi:a.1::,tivo. \'TI.1ero upon tho s02,rch :Q,:.rty t·old hih1 thr:t he wc.s one of ther,1 c.nd tho;r c::c:rosted hir.1. I hc.vo oxm-;iined end considm:·ed tho cvido:1co 011 record. CG -:mll ns the nppellcnt 1 s petition of a.piJOP.l, lilw tho t:r.L·l court, I c.m sr.tisfied thd the conviction of tho

[1.ppollc:nt w:::,s prof,G:i'.'o IIis cuilt W8G ost2:1)licllod beyond renson2ble. The 25th hee,ds of cGttlo uoro duly identified to lmvo l:icon ;;icrt of PiB ts stolen' ccttlea And tho c.ppel12.nt 1-rn..s found with those co.ttle only e ·dny 2.f'ter they hc'.d been stokn. Tho o.ppellc.nt 1 s cccom1t th2,t the senrch pai"ty just picked on him 2.s he 1ms wnlkin( ntout cr:nnot be true end it wc.s ri{)1tly rejectodo The cpr,cll,·nt could not c.dvcence 2.1w renso:n r:s to wby tho som.:ch po.rty, in pcrticula1~, PW1 ond P!:72 could h~.v0 implicated hirn in this r.ir-.tter without cc.usoo .And f'tu:ther, o.cc0Td.il1r to tl:c tcstir:iony of PT-T2 tho nppelhmt when questioned by the soc:rch :p;:::]~t;r, he 2d.r::ittod to h2vo stolon the cnttle in question. This u:::;s ,:1 confesr.,iono The oppolli:nt did not che.llence this evidence c.t the tri21 1 tl·•.C't is, durinc the proaocntion ce.se c:s well ns in hie own defence. Ile is now tryint to I'otract or ropucli,-:,,to this confession in his petition of appec.1. E:c he.s st..::ted in his petition of appe:-~l thd ho adnittod to 112,ve conu-.1itted the offence to snve his lifo. r.:o 1-rnuld other-· wise heve been killed and left in the bush. I cm fer from boinc pursu.cdod by tho 2:.ppoll2,nt 1 s 1Jelr.tod sttenpt to '· inpet:ch tho ·confession he mndc o If indeed it hcd i)ecn obt~ined thrml[.h fo:::r nnd throats, I se~ no rouson why ho did

not 1~niso the issue of its involu:ntnrine:ss ct the trial. In o.y view this is but t:n nftor th:OU£.;ht on the pc:rt of tho appollo.nt and en nttempt on his pr·.rt to e::..t'ricate himself from this difficult situation., Tie h2.s not succeed., Thff conviction wns well found.ado Th8 sentence iraposed -:,;.s 9 yo::-~ro imp:riso1m.ent o There is no minir.rurJ. sentence set fo"J: offences undoJ~ the Econor;1ic and Orcnnized Crime Control Act. Tl~e max.imw:i sentence is 15 years imp:;_~ioonment. In ir.;:pos:inc tho sentence of 9 yccrs, the loc.rncd Senior Resident I:~rcistro.te 1 obsor<;ed thd the offence of cr,ttle theft w2.s p:rovelent in the areno .And thnt e. lot of :innocent lives of pooplc cs well c.s Government revenue is w2,stod in tho course of cc.ttlo rustl:inc nnd in tho 001,1.rse of try:i.n[: to prevent cattlo rustEnc in thd pert of tho country0 In ny viou those uorc pJ:Opor fr:ct ors to t--ko into account o In tho ci:i.~cumstr.:nces the:rof'o:i:·0, I o.:m of th0 view thd tho sentonco of 9 yo, 2'S w2.s7'tho circur.1stnnccs not so oxcor::;sivo to wc:rr.c.nt tho into:;: :foronce by this court. It is he1~ol:iy ·uphold. ~ .. ~=','. ;: ~(· ., .. ::~~·\. . .,. '. {'\ ·. ·-~~?- . -3 and ,,._,· ✓ This nppccl theJ:ofo~co fc:'1.ls/ in it is acco1"C!.int:ly d. iDsj_ssed· in its entirety., ;t~i -j. ,-t~~ . .,l!!,•'1i ~:f_;. i:- ..',':...·. ,,, 11. II o SEI:L'LE Ix ;:,;;\ Delivm~ed

on this 19th dny. of Api·il, MaleJ;}Shn lo8rned Sto.tc 1:..ttornoyo JUJ)GE t;};,>.~-,: 1 _, ... r;: ·~·, :r\}': . . '~1\i· . .1\1•. ~ ~:' l - ' 1 "jT .... ' \~ .' ........._':..,, \ ~ - >' \"_ :MW.A1IBA Ho SEI(ULE ·~:,e \" . 19/4/89 JL'DGE ·~ .t· ''.."'- :. ~1:--. : \,~; ... . -- ,, !'~ .~ ·•I'•; ~t•-.' : r \~~ .... . ,,.<._•""-\ ' ii . t.' ,. .. , : - .__ " c '\ t.., .,// - ♦..... , __ '~· · t! ;pr;"'

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 section 302

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Economic and Organized Crime Control Act

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.