james seitara vs republic 1983 tzhc 62 24 october 1983
- Citation
- james seitara vs republic 1983 tzhc 62 24 october 1983
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Court
- TZHC
- Decision
- 24 October 1983
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appellate Judgment
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- TZHC
- Decision
- 24 October 1983
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appellate Judgment
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
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
AppellantThe Republic
RespondentAmounts and remedies
- Value of Stolen Property: TZS 5,000
- Sentence Imposed: years 5
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appellate Judgment
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether conviction based on accomplice evidence was proper
- 02
Whether sentence under Minimum Sentences Act was appropriate
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
Legal principles
- 01
General principles of criminal law
Conviction can be based on accomplice evidence if corroborated by material facts.
- 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.
TZHC
Judgment· 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*
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.