19750502 TZHC Arusha
The forfeiture order was improper as the appellant, the registered owner, was not involved in the offences, and there was no evidence to contradict his account or justify depriving him of his property.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 19750502 TZHC Arusha
- Parties
- Appellant: James G. Nduati; Respondent: The Republic
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 2 May 1975
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
- Outcome
- appeal allowed
- Legal Topics
- Forfeiture of Property, Ownership Rights, Fauna Conservation Offences
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
James G. Nduati
Appellant
The Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the order of forfeiture of the appellant's Land Rover was proper when the appellant was not convicted of the offences.
Ratio Decidendi
The forfeiture order was improper as the appellant, the registered owner, was not involved in the offences, and there was no evidence to contradict his account or justify depriving him of his property.
Court Disposition
appeal allowed
Orders
- The Land Rover should be returned to its registered owner, James G. Nduati.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
THE HIGI COURT OF Tk:zA.1'A kPPELLATE ' JURISDIC T ION HIGH COURT CRIMINAL APPEAL NO, 365 OF 1974 I ORIGINAL CRIMINAL CASE NO. 384 OF 1974 OF THE DISTRICT COU1T OF ARUSHA DISTRICT AT IRUSHA BEFORE:- JA. LOSO, Esq., Resident Magistrate • JA.MES G. NDUATI ........... ...... a....APPELLANT (Original Accused) • versus THEREPtJBLIC......O..O....O...........RESPONDENT (Original rosecut,or) JtJDGEMENT M.AXLLIVJE, J. Mr. D'Souza, learned Counsel, apearod for the appellant to protest against an order forfeiting the appellant's Land Rover, Registration Number IRE 749, which was involved in some two offences against the Fauna Conservation Ordinance. Three people, the appellant not one of them, were found Guilty of the offences and accordingly punished. The appellant told this court that the motor vohiclo was his own and he produced its Regitration CarJ o ro • He said he had lent the vehicle to his cousin, looiL:r, ;.io in exchange had pormited his tractor to work on the • appellant's shamba. Loysikar told the court that ELLY SAITJJUI, one of the accused persons, was his driver and that Saitambui had driven off the vehicle in the absence of Leysikar, who was away on safari, tel1ii Leysikar's mother that he was driving to Ariisha to go and purchase some fuel. These assertions the Republic was not able to prove to be untrue at the hearing of this appeal and nothing in the resume recited at the trial would suggest that they could not have been true! Saitambui merely sai•d"The vehicle was in my charge", which was as.factually correct as it was insufficiently informative for the purposes of forfeiture, and none of •the accused persons was invited to advance reasons against forfeiture. As it is now, the wrong person was adversely affected by the order forfeiting the Land Rover. The appeal is therefore allowed and the Land Rover should accordingly be given back to its registered owner, JAMES G. NDUATIO (L. M. MA.Kt.TIE) JUDGE. Arusha: 2nd May, 1975 /MTPM.