19840921 TZHC Mbeya
The conviction was quashed because the only evidence against the appellant was hearsay, which is inadmissible, and there was no corroborative or direct evidence to support the charge of cattle theft.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 19840921 TZHC Mbeya
- Parties
- Appellant: Kalonga Mahundi; Respondent: The Republic
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 21 September 1984
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appellate
- Outcome
- Conviction quashed and sentence set aside.
- Legal Topics
- Cattle Theft, Hearsay Evidence, Standard of Proof
- Source Language
- english
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Kalonga Mahundi
Appellant
The Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appellate
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the conviction for cattle theft was supported by admissible evidence
- 2 Whether hearsay evidence was improperly relied upon
Ratio Decidendi
The conviction was quashed because the only evidence against the appellant was hearsay, which is inadmissible, and there was no corroborative or direct evidence to support the charge of cattle theft.
Court Disposition
Conviction quashed and sentence set aside.
Orders
- Appellant acquitted of the charge of cattle theft.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
,.:. Cø- ppp hfc /lA 1 I. IN Tff. HIGI COURT OF T3JJIA .ARLLLATE JURISDICTION (YJL REGisY) CRLiflL Aj.'PEAL NO. 81 OF 19C3 OY.IGIuiLL CRINIiIth. CASE NO.. 52 OF.198 OF TILE DISTRICT COURT OF CHUNYJi BIIThICT LT CNUiThL Before ]. I Ikume Beq., Djtrict,iirato. KdLONG:i ?IAIIUfIL ....... g • 0 ii.>EL1LLJL. .vUS TH RiiLIC RESIOiL)UET . CHARGE: Cattle Theft coxtrry to zootion 268 and 265 of the p0 • 1. :. JUDGi'UlT -.------ --* - . . . ... I .,, . •. -. - .- 0 BiHi.TI . . The appelLt ICiO G li.T-iOflJ& was coricted of tho offeuceof cattle thrft contrary to scctio 28 ud 26 of the onel 'oand scntened to a term of ithprisoni3nt for 7 years and ordered to y1 coupoxation of 7 P head of ctt1e o 'is 10,500, = in lieu of thu toad of o i.ttle to the compl'innt. He has no ')neaJ ccl ainst conviction and sentence. The Reublic. di.d not suipot the :oflvj(tj •. The only cvi elce n.t the ajel 1 ant is .. at )i va rientioned by a nger to be the oi:.ic-r the hecd. of ctlb fcu: 'ih that stranger which cattle wei ic.entified by the o'nicr as a loni:y to stranger was not oven called as a ithess at tii tni.1 of the appellant. There was no othen vicnce ainst the apo11ant of Iiy force There is some other evi. ece like the adizsion of i2ollant that he had given the cattle to a youa ::an to loLl: afthr. The sum total of all the evidence against the ao1lant may raise suspicion. ainst kin but it does not pr:)ve tl).is so:ious char'e of cattle th-cf1 ccrin; to the rul3s of evidcnc. ha-ic to iiore all what'thé stra:ICeT is aidto have told thj prosecution witnesses becaus i -fr is ..iearsd:z; ftr e:clicdinc that.. evidcnc rO are left with the bars asseticns of th prosecution wi:ness:e that tuile appellant admtted bcfore i, crn o e_ns i -i the tclef c Ltic tc ti a strcner. There is real1no coui ovidorice to supor± such a serious charge. Jven lcanL. tr:.al &strate Iñ 1iis jüclunt sir1:r relies on what the strancr ±oJ.d the ,rosecuticiiwrcnoss os w -:ick is ho rsar evidence. . . ..