Tanzania Judgment

TZHC

james seitara vs republic 1983 tzhc 62 24 october 1983

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The appellant's conviction was upheld as the accomplice evidence was corroborated by the appellant's conduct and circumstances. The sentence of five years was proper and mandated by the Minimum Sentences Act due to the value of the stolen property.

Court disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Conviction and sentence affirmed

02

Material facts

Parties

James Seluwaha

Appellant

The Republic

Respondent

Amounts and remedies

  • Value of Stolen Property: TZS 5,000
  • Sentence Imposed: years 5

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Criminal Appeal / Appellate Judgment

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The appellant argued he should not have been convicted on the evidence of an accomplice and that the property stolen was not public property, so the Minimum Sentences Act should not apply. He also argued the five-year sentence was too harsh.
Respondent
The respondent maintained the conviction was proper based on corroborated accomplice evidence and that the sentence was mandated by law due to the value of the stolen property.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    General principles of criminal law

    Conviction can be based on accomplice evidence if corroborated by material facts.

  2. 02

    Minimum Sentences Act, 1972

    Minimum Sentences Act applies to scheduled offences regardless of whether property is public or private.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The appellant's conviction was upheld as the accomplice evidence was corroborated by the appellant's conduct and circumstances. The sentence of five years was proper and mandated by the Minimum Sentences Act due to the value of the stolen property.

Obiter and limits

  • The sentence imposed was in fact inadequate given the breach of trust by the appellant.
  • The owner of the shop being private or public is irrelevant under the Minimum Sentences Act.

Court disposition

Appeal dismissed

  • Conviction and sentence affirmed

Source and reliance status

TZHC · 24 October 1983

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

TZHC

Judgment· 24 October 1983

james seitara vs republic 1983 tzhc 62 24 october 1983

APPELLATE JURISDICTION HIGH COURT CPJtailAL APPEAL NO. 235 OP 1982 (0FtICINAL C2IT1INAL CASE N O / 70 OF 1982 OP THE DISTRICT COUTH OF MV/ANZA DISTKICT AT MV/ANZA - BEFORE E . K. MJTAKI E q S .’, DISTRICT t-t/^ISTRATI JAMES S3i'IEAHA. : : : : : : : t : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : A P P 'FT.T / 1JT versu s THE HEHJBLIC : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : j RESPONDED

J U D G E MENT MFA LILA fJ , The a p p e lla n t JAMES SELTL’AiiA. was th e 2nd a ccu s e d a t th e t r i a l i n th e d i s t r i c t c o u r t Mwenza# He was ch arged a lo n g w ith f o u r o t h e r a ccu se d p e rs o n s w ith t h e o f f e n c e o f shop b r e a k in g and s t e a li n g c o n t r a r y to s e c t i o n 296 o f th e P enal O odcc The a p p e lla n t a l o n g ~ w i t h " ‘ t h e 1 s t and 3 rd a ccu sed p e rs o n s w ore c o n v ic t e d as ch arged and s e n te n ce d t o f i v e y e a rs im prisonm ent u n ^ er th e Mmirmm Se: fe n c e s A ct 197 2 ‘“#: The 4th and 5 th a ccu s e d p e rso n s w ere a c q u i t t e d f I t h in k on th e ev id u n c^ on r e c o r d th e 4th a ccu se d sh ou ld n ot have been a cq u itte d '# However th e a p p e lla n t a lo n e a p p ea led a g a in s t b o th h i s c o n v i c t i o n and sen ten ce a rg u in g t h a t he sh ou ld n ot h a ve b een " c o n v ic t e d on th e e v id e n c e o f an a c c o m p lic e th a t i s t o sa y A ccu sed and w ith reg a rd t o th e se n te n ce h o s a id th a t t h e p r o p e r t y s t o l e n was n o t p u b lic p r o p e r t y so he s h o u ld n o t have b een se n te n ce d u n der th e Minimum S^ntC-nccs A ct and th a t i n any c a s e th e s e n t e n c e o f 5 y . a r s was t o o h a rsh * The 1 s t , 2nd and 3 rd a ccu s e d p erson s w ere e l l employed a s t a i l

o r s b y t h e com p la in a n t one AMERIA MBEKENGA (R7 l ) , who owned a t a i l o r i n g sh op a t Kirumba Stadium , T he 1 s t a ccu s e d A lp h o n c e A l e l a was so to speak th e forem an f o r he w as r e s p o n s ib l e f o r th e s e c u r i t y o f th e shop and he k ep t th e k ey t h e r e o f# On 6 /2 /8 2 when he r e p o r t e d f o r d u ty a t t h e sh op , he fou n d th a t th e p a d lo ck had be«..n tem pered w ith and i n h i e own w o rd s , when th e to u ch e d th e d c6 r h e fou n d th a t i t hod been brok en ^nd when h e ch eck ed 'i n s i d e he fou n d th a t t e n h ea ds o f sew ing in'-chinos had been s t o l o n * He r a is e d an .alarm and went 'to re*port to h i s em p loyer who d i r e c t e d him to g o t o th e P o l ic e S t a t io n and make a fo rm a l r e p o r t about t h e b re a k in g s T hroughout th a t d ry th e a p p e lla n t and h i s c o l l . a g u e thvj 3rd a ccu se d d id not a ppea r a t t h e i r p la c e o f w o rk , th e com p la in a n t t h e r e f o r e s t r o n g ly s u sp e cte d them and askL<l t h e 1 s t a ccu sed t o t r a c e them a t t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e p l^ c s o f r e s i d e n c e . Meanwhile d u rin g th e n i $ i t on 7 /2 /8 2 som ething was ta k in g p la c e a t Igoma on t h e o u t s k i r t s o f Mwanza tow n . L u rin g t h r t n ig h t th e M i l i t i a i n t h e a r e a w

eiv making a h ou se t o h ou se se a rch f o r unem ployed vagabonds# I n t h e c o u r s e o f t h i s se a rch th e y rea ch ed tlic h ou se w here th e 5th •-ccused re n te d a room# I n t h i s room th e IstL litia found som ething c o v e r e d i n sa ck s# Vfoen th e y u n co v e re d i t , th e y fou n d e ig h t ’le a d s o f seWiDg m 'c h in e s o f d i f f e r e n t makes* They aske th e 5 th a ccu se d a s to whom t h i y b e lo n g e d , he s a id th a t t h e y had b een ta k e n th e r e b y t h e '4 t h a ccu sed # The 4th a ccu sed was t r c v » d and q u e s tio n e d * He a greed ta k in g th e n there* but he e x p la in e d t h a t th e y b e lo n g e d t c two p e o p le who had b ro u g h t 'them t o him and th a t th e y w ould be c o l l e c t i n g them th e f o l ^ o ’ 'in g m o m ir g i He ad d ed th a t he did n o t know t h e i r names, bu t th a t hu kn v; them b y fa c e # I t w as d e cid e d to k .o p M ilitia m e n a t t h e B u siya H o te l v/h. i th., 4th a ccu se d w orked and a r r e s t anybody who came t o c la im t h e goods# In d eed t h e f o l l o w i n g day th e a p p e l l a n t nnd t h e 3 rd a ccu sed a r r iv e d at t h e H o t e l rnd asked f o r the- 4 t h accused*. They w ere a r r e s t e d b y PW 4 NILA Slihr3 A . In h i s d e fe n c e th e a p p e lla n t d en ied t h e s e a l le g a t io n s # s 'i d t h a t on 6 /2 /8

2 h e did not r p o rt a t h i s p la c e o f work, b eca u se h i s w i f e was t r a v e l l i n g t h r t day* Then on 8 /2 /8 2 h e Went to Igoma to buy some k h a r g a s , w h ich he d id not g e t b eca u se th e p e rso n r e s p o n s ib le c o u ld not be Seen# But he u ,.t on e V0da a f r ie n d o f h i s who in form ed him o f t h e b re a k in g a t t h e i r shop® I t was w h i l e Veda was t e l l i n g him t h i s s t o r y th a t i i a l i t i r n a n appeared and a r r e s t e d him f o r laavine b. & in v o lv e d i n th e b re a k in g i n t o o f th e co m p la in a n t1 s s h o p c T h is he d e n i.d e Thu o n l y lin k 'b e t w e e n th e a p p e lla n t and t h i s o f f e n c e i s th e e v id e n c e o f h i s c o -a c c u s e fl th e 4th a c c u s e d . A c co rd in g to t h i s a ccu sed th e rr.ppellc.nt ancl h i s f r ie n d th .. 3rd a ccu se d went t o him a t "b o u t 1 0 ,00pm and askud him t o ke^p i n s a f e d u stod y t h e i r lu g g a g e u n t i l th e f o llo w in g m orning when th e y w ould le a v e f o r MusomaP They t o l d him t h a t t h e i r lu g g a g e c o n s i s t e d o f sew ing u rch in *; h ea d s w hich th e y wer,. t r ic in g t o Musoma w here th e y w ere m oving t h e i r b u s in e s s # As he l i v e d f a r from th e r o a d , th e 4th re c u s e d asked h i s c o l l j a g u e the 5 t h ‘ a ccu s e d th e u

se o f h i s room f o r t h i s p u rp ose and he t o o k t h e room key# He went end d e p o s it e d th*.. lu g g a g e i n th e 5 th accused* s room* To prov^ h i s p o in t the- 4th a ccu s e d s a id on h i s ’<arr>. s t th a t th e two p e o p le r e s p o n s i b le w ould come t o f e t c h t h e i r lu g g a g e# I t was f o r t h i s re a so n th a t t h e " M i l i t i a l a i d an ambush a t th e B u siy a H o te l w here th e 4th a ccu se d work',' They in te n d e d t o a x r e s t w hoever came t o a sk f o r th e 4th a c c u s e d . The a p p e lla n t and h i s c o l l e a g u e d id e x a c t l y t h i s and th e 4th a ccu sed i d e n t i f i e d them to be th e p e o p le who had ta k e n th e lu g g a g e c o n t a in in g sew ing m rchine heads* The a p p ea ra n ce o f t h e a p p e lla n t and h i s c o l l e a g u e a t th e h o t e l a sk in g f o r th e 4th a c c u s e d “c o l l a b o r a t e d th e l a t t e r 1 s e v id e n ce # T here was a n o th e r c b r r o b o r a t iv e f a c t o r ,, Both th e a p p e lla n t and t h e 3 rd a ccu se d worked a t th e p l - c where th e v e r y m achines had b^e s t o l e n , th e y had d isa p p e a r e d from t h e i r ' p la c e o f w ork sine-:, th e t h e f t and w h a t’ i t more th e 4th a ccu se d had no r e a s o n t o make f a l s e a l l e g a t i o n s a g a in s t them* I t h e r e f o r e a g re

e w ith th e t r i a l m a g is t r a te th a t th e a p p e lla n t t o o k p a rt i n th e brealcLng o f h i s em p loy er1 s shop and s t o l e th.. m achine heads# L a t e r a t n ig h t he and c o l le a g u e t o o k th e l o o t to Ig o n a p o s s i b l e a s a f i r s t phase o f t h e i r p la n t o d is p o s e o f them* He was r i g h t l y c o n v ic t e d and h i s a p p ea l a g a in s t t h e same i s d ism isse d # W ith re g a rd t o t h e s e n t e n c e , th e se n te n ce o f 5 y e a rs im prisonm ent was p r o p e r , my o n l y co m p la in t a g a in s t i t i s th a t i t i s in a d e q u a t e . He sh ou ld have been sen ten ced t o * a h ig h e r s e n te n c e f o r t h i s u g l y and fla g r a n t abuse o f h i s em p loy er’ s t r u s t c F or th e in fo m a t io n o f th e a p p e l l a n t , th e o f f e n c e o f sh op b rea k in g and s t e a li n g i s a s ch e d u le d o f f e r e e u n d er th e Minimum S e n te n ce s A c t and t h e owner o f t h e shop b rok en i n t o i s ir r e le v a n t ,. As t h e v a lu e o f th e p r o p e r t y tlie y s t o l e i s more than 5 ,0 0 0 /= , th e M ini mm S en ten ce i s f i v e y e a rs $ V/ith th e su r e a s o n s th e a p p e a l a g a in s t s e n te n c e i s a l s o d ism isse d * D e liv e r e d i n C ourt a t Kwanza t h i s 2 4th day o f O c t o b e r , 1983*

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 296

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Minimum Sentences Act, 1972

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.