19881121 TZHC Dar es Salaam
- Citation
- 19881121 TZHC Dar es Salaam
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Court
- TZHC
- Decision
- 21 November 1988
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- TZHC
- Decision
- 21 November 1988
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
Sentences imposed exceeded statutory powers of the subordinate court; proper sentence is five years imprisonment on each count, to run consecutively, due to special circumstances outweighing mitigating factors.
Court disposition
sentences set aside and substituted
Orders
- Each appellant sentenced to five years imprisonment on each count, sentences to run consecutively
02
Material facts
Parties
Iddi Mohamed Thusi & Others
Appellant Counsel: Mr. MarandoThe Republic
Respondent Counsel: Mr. SabakaliaAmounts and remedies
- Original Sentence Count One: 7
- Original Sentence Count Two: 15
- Substituted Sentence Count One: 5
- Substituted Sentence Count Two: 5
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the sentences imposed exceeded statutory limits
- 02
Whether mitigating factors warranted reduced sentences
- 03
Whether sentences should run concurrently or consecutively
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Sentences are excessive given appellants' youth, first offender status, and guilty plea; non-custodial or shorter sentences should have been imposed.
- Respondent
- Sentences are appropriate due to seriousness of the attempted hijacking with passengers and crew onboard; court should consider gravity of the offense.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Section 170 of the Criminal Procedure Act
Subordinate courts may impose a maximum of five years imprisonment for non-scheduled offenses and eight years for scheduled offenses unless otherwise provided by written law.
- 02
Court of Appeal of Tanzania, Ifodija Ally Kisandu @ Smach Martin Sikandamane, DPP Cr. App. No. 33 of 1988
Concurrent sentences are generally imposed for offenses committed in the same transaction unless special circumstances exist.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
Sentences imposed exceeded statutory powers of the subordinate court; proper sentence is five years imprisonment on each count, to run consecutively, due to special circumstances outweighing mitigating factors.
Obiter and limits
- Appellants' youth and guilty plea are mitigating but outweighed by seriousness of offense.
- Attempted hijacking with passengers and crew is grave and cannot be viewed as childish.
Court disposition
sentences set aside and substituted
- Each appellant sentenced to five years imprisonment on each count, sentences to run consecutively
Source and reliance status
TZHC · 21 November 1988
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 November 1988
~~ ~ v-_,J,-- "j;- S_-~ CL,tnr:J) . ~ TIIE U1UTED IlE?f.JBLIC or. TL.1JZ1JUA Il-i. 'H.J_:_; DIGIT COURT Or.. TIJ:TZ.i:JITL ---- .AT DLR~ ES .SLL,:'Jll:I. APPELLl1TE JURISDICTION ' TIIGII. COURT CRIMIHAL l',.PPEfi.L NO_., 49 ·OF:-:; 988 ORIGmt..L CRIHTIH.L Cli.SE 1w. 218 OF -1988 OF .TIIE DISTRICT COURT OF ILJ,.L.A DISTRICT AT KISUI'U IDDI MOI:Iill.JED TIIJUSI & O'nl.t!!i.1S .,, ., • • • C APPELLANTS . versus TUE REPUBLIC .• 0 0 • • • • • • • • • • • · RES?OlillENT alias Kisoda- rind Jnni lm0h, R2Z:12.;:l.h::1.ni wo1,0 jointly chc.rgod in tho ncs:i.dmr~ J11IC'.,;is-tre,to Court. of Dr:.r os S0l2,::m ~rith one cm.mt of ·conspirc..cy -to c.or.iEµ·~ ;:,, :felony contrc.ry to sectio:;:1 384 of tho Po;.1c..l· Cocle and. ru.1othor corn:l"l; of ~nc"..mgo:ri..11g the sn.fety· of avic.ticn contr<'.r;y- to section 318 A( 1 )(a) o:f tho P.on.?.l Code• All of then were coni,ic-'cod on bo-th counts c:i.fter tl:.oy h[')l ::•l0C'Llocl guilty• On the :first cou,rb oGCh of' ·bhon w2.s sontencocl to inp::.,ir:ion- :::.Jnt :for seven yem-s while n jo.il torn of' 15 Jreo.r.s was· inposecl on owh of , -t:1.0;:1 in respect of the soconcl cou:1tai . Th:i_s 0ppo;:,,l is ngcinst theoo s0;.rconco~.~ It hn:s· been argued by Mr~ M8.rnnclo, ..,cha lo2Xnocl counsel f'or tho . '.·::):_)ollc..."tlts ·that these sontoncos o.re excessive ·~c-.king into ncc·ount tho rwt • -~~--:--.t r,ppcllants are vory young,
first offcmd.ors c.nd have rocXlily ploc,e'Locl -_,__:n-l~~ ..,Go tho charge_. In. his op:1.11.ion tho ['.ppollnnts shoulcl h11v0 bean • ., ·:.von :1on-oustodial sentences or shorter to:rns of IDiJr:tsonnont~ In :;~cm:L:,-: ·': ., t~::.i::: Iv.ir.., S~bakalia, tho loronccl Stato Lttorncy. n.rgl10d -liho.t in tho c_.i.:_•c1.u:.ist011ces of tho· cc.so, tho sentences wore f'o.i:;..~ 0110. proper~ Ho urgocl ·I t::;:-: court to tclco into 2..0cou11t tt.o seriousness of tho appollru:i."i;st o..ct of' t_,~ ·irig to hijo..ck the circra.ft in question w:i th 1x1.soG11.gors n.nd crow on boc.:rc~. On the face of H one may co.siJ:y be C<.'.J:riocl over by tho o.rgui:1011·~ of tho· loamed counsel for- tho o,ppel12J1.ts~ H is t:.::uo that appellants .c.:ro ··• · -.ocy ~rm.mg - all of thera ar0 o..bou-'G 17 yo<'.rs old,,, All of jcher:i ho.ve 1.1:.llJlooishod record nnd h2-ve plcc..clcd guilty to both counts~ In tho no1nc,l -:.:i-:cl1.ustmc0s these f'c.ctors ought to have n:i..ti6 [1,fod tho ·intonclecl sm1~i;o11co -2- IloWOV"O~ tho ;,,he.root e-e:rioll.Sl10S.S-•Of ·tlJ.a a.pp-ellwt.s rots :fer.-· outweighs those ni t:i:gating factors., I shudclor to :in"g:i.110. _tho gro;vity of tho . locs both in lives mid. property that would l1rrvo resulted hnd tho pilots,. through pm.ri.c, Disonncgcd tho plane. With respect, it is highly nbsu.rc.l to viow the c1ppollants• oot cs childish . c.s sug5ostcd
by tho leaxnocl. c'..ofoooo counsel. _Thougb. very youns, r.,pix,llc.ats hr.we clcoicloc1 to plcy big h0i100 they shoulcl be troo.toc.1 <1-s such. Tho· loc:i'J:1...od triol. Principcl :l.csident Mc1.&istrn:to wc..s, with rospoct, 1 ~ c.[Ui to justifioc1 to ignore those :Oitiga:~ing f'ootors. But with even gro;.:d;or r.o~poot to hin, those scntmicos m>o not logru.ly sustci.nablo• Tho sentencing ~ s of suborcl-inc.,te ·courts :-:.ro_ proscribocl unc7.or section 170 of' tho Cri.Bin.'.'.1 Procoduro Let ◄ As fnr 2.s oustoclicl sentences c.rc concorncd suborclineto courts axe onpoworoc to impose n no..xi,..7UL1 of f'ivo ;rom:-s impriso:ni.':lont for ·non schedule of-foncos 2nc1 eight yoaxs for schoc1.lllcd. o.ff'ences mr.ccpt. whore it• is ot!:::orwiso provicled under ci-i;y 1·iritto11 l,:.:1·r• It is noted th2,t tl:.o t1-ro offonces .in this co..se oxe not schcclulocl o:.?foncos nor do thoy fall unclo~ the provisions o:f the Econor.1ic nncl OrJc.nisod Crime. Col;ltrol Act.. Iloncc the loc..r;1od trio.l Principcl Resident Mc.:;istrcto ought to have o.xoGr.sised his sontonci...~ po'i-mr.s within- tho ,x·strictions proscribccl· unclor soc.tion 170. Tho sontoncos of 15 _ycc;rs 7 i:cc::rs iBprisot1mont ro:'e uJ. tr8. vircs the ste.:cu.tor;y- power of tJ:.c lcc.:rnocl_ triQl nc:gistro.to. In his sentencing rmnro:ks tho ler1.rned no.gistrc.to illustrc:/6ivoly C;:::,ros sed. tho g.ravi ty
of tb.c off onces. Ee wa.s of tho view, ,:nd cr,..1Ho rie~tly so, th['.t n.ppel1c'l1~s c1osorvoc:. severe sonfoncos. .In r:iy opinion r.-, sentence. of 2. me.;--d.rnim of five yom:-s iop1,isonr1011t which tho lcG.X11ocl. t:i.,i"'l , ;:1c.gistrc,t0 -~s legally competent to iLlposo would not be suf'ficicnt 01101.1.::;l:, ::01100 whe,t tho looxnccl tri2,l t1ogistrc:~0 ou,el:.t to hc,vo clo;.10 is to conni-~ -~:.10 c,:_);)cllcmts to thio court· for sontonciri:0 ,. .L\ml -in Jcho c.bsoncc of of' such ordor this court cc.i.111.ot substitute for sonte:,1cos which nre higher than those which m-e within the powers of t:10 suborctinc1to court. Tho loo:L'llod trio..l nc.gisJGrn.te ·ofdcrecl t;10 two sentences ·i;o run co110urro11tly• Wi tii respct;;, I think tho l0n.1'l1ocl nacistrcto wc,s wrong. _ Hot-wi thstnruling the presence of sone stro;1g r.d. tigo.tine factors tho nagistrc..to wa.s of the view thnt there woro sono spocic,l circunstcnces ::~I1icl: required hin t? :L:1po~o severe sentencos 1 This court ·is of the scne opinion.. W'i th this fincling tho nngis_!rci,tc wc.s required, on tho. str0115-'Gh of vm-i~us court a.uthoritioo, inclmli!JG tho recent decision of tho Court of Appoa.J. of TClJlZ?~1 fa, in Ifodija Ally KiB1Jc;u @ Sm-ch Mm-tin S:k-""JrJC'illC'.1'¼,'C, ~.-- ·t1~0 DPP Cr•: App• ·1fo~3.3 of 1988 (unrcportcc1), to orclor tho sontonce of ::.::::::dso11Dcnt ioposod on the
two counts nu1 co11c1..UTontly. ,- 3 - I11 other, words tho presence of spccie,l ciJ:'c1,trJstr.nccs L11 this c2.so c:.is1,cl tho estc.blishec1 court pro..c·~ico requiring courts to inpose concurrent scntonoos of inprisonmont f'or off'onces corn.ii ttocl in Jcho S::'..:.10 trc.'.J:l.sc'.Ction 2,s in tho present ca.so. In conclusion, for reasons nc.rra.tccl so fCT, tho sontoncos of sovon ~-oc'.rs nnd fifteen yem-s :i1Jprisonncnt inpo soc.1. on tho two counts cxo. horolJy . . cct o.side encl insto2.c.l oc.ch c1ppollo.nt is sontoncod to inp:risonnont for r., tc.n of five yoo.rs on 02.0h count. T1-..1cso s011to11cos cro to run consecutively. l..T Nill ES. SAIJl.l~ ~i/11/1988 ---·-----
JTJDGE
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.