Download PDF

Tanzania Judgment

TANZLII

hatungimana odasi and another vs republic 2019 tzhcld 281 23 october 2019

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

Applicants' inability to pay the fine and their hard-economic situation justify reduction of custodial sentence to facilitate immediate release.

Court disposition

sentence reduced; applicants ordered released unless held for other lawful cause

Orders

  • Applicants to be released from prison unless otherwise held for lawful cause
  • Applicants to be deported to Burundi

02

Material facts

Parties

Hatungimana s/o Odasi

Applicant

Filbert s/o Michael

Applicant

Republic

Respondent Counsel: M/S Mayunga, Senior State Attorney

Amounts and remedies

  • Fine Imposed: TZS 500,000
  • Custodial Sentence: 6

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Criminal Revision / Judgment

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Whether the sentence imposed on the applicants for unlawful presence was appropriate given their status as first offenders and guilty plea

Party arguments

Applicant
Applicants prayed for reduction of sentence, citing first offender status and guilty plea, and promised not to re-enter Tanzania without permit.
Respondent
Learned State Attorney did not object to reduction of sentence, considering the circumstances of arrest.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Immigration Act, Cap. 54 R.E 2002

    Minimum fine and maximum custodial sentence under Section 45(1)(i) and (2) of the Immigration Act, Cap. 54 R.E 2002

  2. 02

    Criminal Procedure Act, Cap. 20 R.E 2002

    Court's revisional jurisdiction under Section 372 of Criminal Procedure Act

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

Applicants' inability to pay the fine and their hard-economic situation justify reduction of custodial sentence to facilitate immediate release.

Obiter and limits

  • Applicants to be deported to Burundi unless held for other lawful cause

Court disposition

sentence reduced; applicants ordered released unless held for other lawful cause

  • Applicants to be released from prison unless otherwise held for lawful cause
  • Applicants to be deported to Burundi

Source and reliance status

TANZLII · 23 October 2019

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

TANZLII

Judgment· 23 October 2019

hatungimana odasi and another vs republic 2019 tzhcld 281 23 october 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA

AT KIGQMA

REVISIONAL JURISDICTION (Kigoma District Registry) CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 35 OF 2019 (Originating from Criminal Case No. 239/2019 Of Kasulu District Court) 1. HATUNGIMANA S/O ODASI 2. FILBERT S/O MICHAEL APPLICANTS

VERSUS REPUBLIC ........................................................... RESPONDENT 15/10/2019 & 23/10/2019 MATUMA, J.

JUDGMENT This is a revision “suo motto” by the court following some complaints by the applicants to the Criminal Justice committee during their visit of inmates in the Prison in which the applicant is being held. The applicant pleaded guilty to the charge of Unlawful Presence in Tanzania, contrary to section 45 (1) (i) and (2) of the Immigration Act, Cap. 54 R.E 2002 upon which they were convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Tshs. 50,000/= or in default to serve a jail term of six months. The applicants specific complaint is on the sentence meted to them. Theyare complaining that they were first offenders and had pleaded guilty, therefore ought to have been forgiven. Such complaint was brought to this Court and under Section 372 of Criminal Procedure Act [Cap. 20 R.E 2002], the Court called the records of the trial court in respect of Criminal Case No. 239 of 2019 at Kasulu District Court to satisfy itself of the merits or otherwise of the complaints. At the hearing of this revision the applicants appeared in person while the respondent had the service of M/S Mayunga learned Senior State Attorney. The applicants had no substantive argument in support of the revision. They merely ended praying for the sentence to be reduced and that they won’t repeat to come in Tanzania without permit. The learned State attorney on his party had no objection for the sentence of the applicants

to be reduced taking the circumstances upon which the applicant was arrested. Having gone through the records of the trial court I have observed that the applicants being a national of Burundi was on the 13 Day of July, 2019 during night hours found at Makere village within Kasulu District in Kigoma Region in The United Republic of Tanzania without any permit which is Contrary to Section 45 (1) (i) and (2) of the Immigration supra. Basically, the conviction of the applicants is not contested but the sentence. Under the charged provisions, the minimum fine is Tshs. 500,000/= and in default of the fine the prescribed custodial sentence is that of maximum of three years. The applicant was however sentenced to pay a fine of only Tshs. 500,000/= and in default to serve a custodial sentence of six months. They have failed to pay such amount as a fine. They are thus serving a custodial sentence of six months. That in itself is a clear indicator that the applicantsare in a hard-economic situation. In the circumstances, the custodial sentence is reduced to that which would lead to an immediate release of the applicants. I thus order the Applicants to be released from Prison unless otherwise held for some other lawful cause and they be deported back to their home country, Burundi.

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.

Immigration Act, Cap. 54 R.E 2002

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Criminal Procedure Act, Cap. 20 R.E 2002

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.