johny omary musa kasembe chamkono others vs republic 2011 tzca 117 29 september 2011

johny omary musa kasembe chamkono others vs republic 2011 tzca 117 29 september 2011

Identification of the 1st and 2nd appellants was reliable due to prior acquaintance and daylight; 1st appellant's possession of stolen property shortly after the offence invoked the doctrine of recent possession; evidence against the 3rd appellant was insufficient, warranting acquittal.

Citation
johny omary musa kasembe chamkono others vs republic 2011 tzca 117 29 september 2011
Parties
Appellant: Johny Omary Musa Kasembe @Chamkono; Appellant: Michael s/o Michael Mrope @Chikaputula; Appellant: Isaya Saidi Mlaponi; Respondent: The Republic
Court
TZCA
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
29 September 2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Second Appeal From High Court Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed for 1st and 2nd appellants; appeal allowed for 3rd appellant
Legal Topics
Armed Robbery, Identification Evidence, Doctrine of Recent Possession, Admissibility of Medical Evidence, Calling of Witnesses
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Armed Robbery Identification Evidence Doctrine of Recent Possession Admissibility of Medical Evidence Calling of Witnesses

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Johny Omary Musa Kasembe @Chamkono

Appellant

Michael s/o Michael Mrope @Chikaputula

Appellant

Isaya Saidi Mlaponi

Appellant

The Republic

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Second Appeal From High Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants were correctly identified at the scene of crime
  2. 2 Whether the prosecution evidence was sufficient to prove the offence
  3. 3 Whether the PF3 medical form was properly admitted

Ratio Decidendi

Identification of the 1st and 2nd appellants was reliable due to prior acquaintance and daylight; 1st appellant's possession of stolen property shortly after the offence invoked the doctrine of recent possession; evidence against the 3rd appellant was insufficient, warranting acquittal.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed for 1st and 2nd appellants; appeal allowed for 3rd appellant

Orders

  • Conviction and sentence of 1st and 2nd appellants upheld
  • Conviction of 3rd appellant quashed and sentence set aside