19930122 TZHC Dar es Salaam
- Citation
- 19930122 TZHC Dar es Salaam
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Court
- TZHC
- Decision
- 22 January 1993
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- TZHC
- Decision
- 22 January 1993
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The conviction cannot be sustained as the alleged forged cheque was not produced in court, and there was no evidence linking the appellant to its origin or authorship. Without proof of forgery, the offences of uttering a false document and obtaining goods by false pretences cannot stand.
Court disposition
conviction quashed, appellant acquitted
Orders
- Sentences of four years imprisonment for the second count and eight years imprisonment for the third count are set aside.
- Appellant Kamidia Jumapili to be released forthwith unless otherwise lawfully held.
02
Material facts
Parties
Republic
Respondent Counsel: Mr. Mwengella & Mins Ltr. OsyeKamidia Jumapili
Appellant Counsel: Mr. MwakimsungiAmounts and remedies
- Value of Goods Obtained: TZS 988,000
- Value of Cheque: TZS 1,200,000
- Number of Bags Obtained: 20,000
- Imprisonment (second Count): years 4
- Imprisonment (third Count): years 8
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the conviction for uttering a false document and obtaining goods by false pretences can stand without proof of forgery
- 02
Whether the trial magistrate erred in convicting the appellant without production of the alleged forged cheque
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The trial magistrate erred in convicting the appellant when there was no evidence that he was the author and owner of the alleged cheque; the cheque was not produced in court nor sent for verification; there was no evidence that the cheque originated from the appellant's cheque book.
- Respondent
- The conviction was based on the assertion that the appellant was implicated by the first accused and that the cheque was organized between bank officials and the appellant.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Penal Code
Uttering a false document requires proof of forgery and fraudulent intent.
- 02
Legal principle 2
Conviction cannot be sustained without production and examination of the alleged forged document.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The conviction cannot be sustained as the alleged forged cheque was not produced in court, and there was no evidence linking the appellant to its origin or authorship. Without proof of forgery, the offences of uttering a false document and obtaining goods by false pretences cannot stand.
Obiter and limits
- The trial magistrate based the conviction on suspicion arising from the appellant's association with the account, which is insufficient.
- The assertion that the appellant either impliedly or expressly forged the cheque is unsupported by evidence.
Court disposition
conviction quashed, appellant acquitted
- Sentences of four years imprisonment for the second count and eight years imprisonment for the third count are set aside.
- Appellant Kamidia Jumapili to be released forthwith unless otherwise lawfully held.
Source and reliance status
TZHC · 22 January 1993
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· 22 January 1993
I L;r IJII'.!Ti TIIG:I COU:tT OF TAWZJ:J.tti 1[J: .DL:1. E,'3 SKW.AM r ,......-··-··--·.... ------- cm.:m:nr;;.:L .APPT::AL 4y 92 ORIG. cr.iIB,IDf}..L cs no.. 26/89 01;, T.-.:-3 DI'JTI1..1CT cou.a.T OF IP Tit:. •ile S::.._)pel l Vl'l:t ' ·-,.···-·-:f\·l"r,T m.. n-.,.·,,T--..,.,.,, + •7.·~-rc,I '11/i'.··,•.--,.,, --•~··,-,r, .b,2.'.~cw.,1.,; i\'.i.,u'.w•.uU.1:' J:1,p i'THS' 1-Ti v::1 O:i.10 i. .!!LIJ.iL 1•1U.,.,:;.::. ~l'i-u:.., ob.e.z-~d with fo:..·c;er~:· o/ ss 333 c.na. 3'57 of t~e Pe:1rJ. Code u,lteJ,:'i,."l{; ::i. false ,9-0~,;nent o/s 3t12 of t:.ie Penal Code 8..nd oota,in:i.11,:;· money ey faloa ):E'et~1I tJ! ~2 Gf the Paru::J. Code :1n the District Cottt't of Il2.la at K:tsutu. Q ',l.1',:1e prQeecu.tio11 cJ.10;_:od t1:-t on or about 19 .. 9 38 within Kinondoni 6 l>istrict the two of ·bI.::.em forsea. cheque Ho.c.099596 ]?UJ:'l)orlinG to bo w.:.-awn by N.UIT EXPOB.'111!.[',E OOi:.~frf"f • It ue.s ftu:-the1· cJ.lec,·od 1:zy- the i:r,.•ooecrJ.tiQn t';1.::.t pn or a.bout 23. 9. 00 the two of them c:t :Pol~:-sacks CollIJ?GllY L:tmited wi tJ.in Kinondo;:tl Dir::t:.:-:Lct, 1-ritb. intent to def;;..•:;;t.,Ji or deceive did ,.,_'p1;ain 20000 :Pieces of polyp:;:-oplene 1)a&,-S vcJ.t1.cd at sb.s. 988000/= t1::..e ~:' prQpe:My of Polysr;d.-::S ColiT.;?2sny Limited by depositing a folse o~'.l.aque ~~~ ~ C· 099596 of Siti3. 1$2000/""' pm.'l)ort ing to show thr,,t the su,:\d
d.:,,acn.w. lroB ~ - . ~ 'by EU"11-Y i-Z:.:·O::.~.ii':;;::J C01IPi.JT'I LJJITTZD., -'• t'ile A/f end OJ:.,, t·;..:.o uj;'J.Ql t .J.e f"irst , 2.cc,.me d , s·rr, .J.. • 1 7 ·,-,·,- 1•1u,.;,;i.,t;j. i t.i.t.,.i..;....,. '!l!l'rr'QI, .-,;._j-Tn,· o,.;.,;.-:.,.-, ,.~,,. ,~ f$)'Ul'ld nc>1i guilt;r on c,11 oounts o.na. 'ITT:':S acq"Lti.tted. Tlte appellu:;..rt J,;:d:mDia!' ~~ )UA.I;UJPE r....s fcn.UJ.d. c;Lti.l.t~r of only uttering a f'd.se document ~'lld i?to+i~ 20000 "i.};_-.c;s b;;· fD.lse pretenceso T'ne1.~e wr.s a thi.-c-d po.,-:-a9,n, l';,,'T~ SIMOtt .fu']YI/J; .rho ·ffas c}J.ai.-ged w:i. th dest:ro;y-:1.n(;' e·v5.denoe o/s 109 9f ~~:.~ ~~al Code, t}..,G ::;i:roseo-...1.:tion aJ.le£,i.ng tiu,t he d.est;ro~red ollecr..~~ 1fo. Q'.!;.999~96 of shs., 1L1,D2000/=, but we.a found not c-1-1.Uty ruld. WCJ:l aoq-,,.;t1o¾ Mre; MwokM1,ln[;;1JJ..r,f lec.r:ned co1.111S el f o:"' t:_,.0 c2;~0J.lo.nt 1 su'bmitted i,.--i h;I• fir.at ~und of' O.Z::1:I>G-2.1. -tJ.:1c.:t tl,.e l.e2.J.:onccl t:ricJ. magistrnte h.v.d. o...."'Ted ~ imr 8.lld inf"~t i:1 oo:w:'•.0t:. 11g the ap))ellunt 'l'Ti1en the:,:,e was no evidence 19. fiJMlr that he m~,s t~2e a1..tb.o:;.:- and owne."'i.:' of the cllec;ed chac1:u.~, ~ the 1 se.id cheqti.e li'c.lS nov02 produced in COtU.'t fo2· 8 1:-' ·.tt'.C.hor sent to ff. J.wnd- lrril¥lS e:x:perl fo~ ve:;:-1:f'ica.tion.. In the second {?-om1d of appec,J. it 1P A!?Jl'tended that
the t:;:fa.l coti.rt e:i:Ted in lc.w G...'ld in:fnct in conv:i..oti,nJ the o.ppellant lihen thc.20 112.s r;le.J:>ing eVidence to s~1ow thnt e1.:.eq_u.a leaf Jift>, 099.596 did not oz-ic;i:.:1ate from t~e a_ppellc11t I s cheque book • •••/'er- - ,._, . 2 1-J'ith respect I r.,,::700 uith H:i'. l•fur:i:cG,Su:ng,.-0.c, thr:i.t the conviction of the appall.mt 02n.1ot "1Je sustained.e ii.s tl1e 3.lleJedly forged 0~1.oq_i."!.8 1ms not p.roduoed in OOt".J.~ for him to eX8.m:L.'1.e and :.11::}:.:e D.. f:il'ld:L,g t;~e:;:-0on tlle lea.i..--ned t:-c-icl ~strata did not convict the appellant of fo:i..'(fGX'Y ohcxged in the f:h-ct oo-u:;.!lio Instec.d. the lec,.j'.'lted t:dal. Iilc'1,{:,i.strc,to oonvioted the Sppel~1t of utte:i:'i..--ig a f dse doatwent G.a."ld obta.i.n:i.nG 20000 bags by fdse J?Zetances,. But these tno ocnnot st011d sJ.0..10 without evidence t:~t fa.o On&IJ.l¼8 was :L."lfoot a forcer;r. T'.i.1e oi'fe..100 of uttaxing a fru.se d.oo:t,.ia.1t requi:res knowledge t;1c,t tl:l.e d.om.-unsnts/}~e I Md tb.8,t there is a, fz-o.:,.dulent intent to def'rrn.l.d.., Ls the a.lleced forgery oould not be :pro7ed 110 question of uttering a fru.se dooument oo:D.a. n.rise. I SimilarJ.y the offe;.100 of obtai..Ul'lg by frJ.s·e p:.:-etences oo."1?lot st.:'l'ld uithout f:LTst establio:.1..ing that the· cheque was forged and the pe:rsoh who parted With t:..o f.'OodJ:! did so on the st~1ct~ of
the said oJ.:e~ua. Furthermo:ro tLe 20000 1)0,.36 were received b3'" the first aceu,"led if'ho was aoqui.tted r;;.1<1 it is only becav.se the fj.:;,:-st accused ru:-:macl t:,.e appellant as the po:..1;:io;_1 w;~,o k.d. sent him thct fue appelle.nt m:.a held res- ponsible o.1'ld oonvioted of obtnining ioodi:l "by f..::.lse pretences. '!'1).e leezned. trial. I118,.zj_st;;:-::,,te ought to hc.,ve looked for othez- eVide.."1oe to buttress the clc~L1 b~:- the first nccv.sed before convicting tlte a._l)pallant,. .li.s none 1'1'2J3 f'o:c:thooming the le:.".!'11cd tr5.a1 1Tic·1.gist,:,;.:te w·.."!S 1r.rong to D.2,VG acted on t;.;.e b0,.i.""'3 assertion of the f i.:;_,st r,ccused. I It 1rould appecz ·L:::-,t t~1e leei.1.---ned trinl mL;r:,i.st:i:-~ite 1x:-,sed b.io I Mnviotion of t::e q_Jl)ello.."'lt on suspicion a.r::.si."1.g from the fc.ot t~t,t I t ~e awelle.nt O'lf'tlS TIIli.Ii.tI )JXPORT.JID.S who al'.'e holde:a:-s of aocoui'lt lTo. 5112 tn.."'i?oV.g!.l. w:tl(}l the cheque from lli1ilY illiD.~0;:.,T].l:]3 was clex:ed. f T'JJ.i.s is how he deoJ. t 11it'.0. the mo,ttexi- "It is fu:17tf.::..e:;." sto,ted t:mt tbis ohe(r.:.e whose {;"enuine cheque wcJ3 ism:.ed by Til,IaO to II. Isr,H.,il could 11ot be tr2.ced f~o11 t:ie B32'lk ts strong room. It is not l)y ooncidenoa tne.t this ol,eg_ue landed into the seco~1d. accl".sed 1 s l~c.1.1l;: h/C for olaranoe .. It -;r,::-.,s so oz,e,'£'mzed
1Jet1-reen a, Jk.n;k: Offictcl/0.tf:toi.:J.s and the second cccused, The second V.CC-t.'.Sea. im.plieaiy or exp:;:essly fo:-rC;'ed this cheque ana. pre3011ted it to the PolJ"'BlUlk:s oompe..n;r. It io on the st:;?0111'.i,'tb. of t::-.is c;1eq1.1.e tb.wt J:i.e B.'fili.;.~"ad to steaJ. 20000 bn,,'}3 f:i'om them tbroUQJ. the f :b.:-st acci.ts ed w;.10 did not know w1):o,t lrr.-,s taki..'1.g place. 11 Nfflf this is a olec..i:' misdi.-c-ectiono Since th0 ;:,,;9:9ellcmt we,s not c.n. e~loyee of &...DB it ,;re.a for :PWII the Bank Controller t 0 eJq-,1 ain rum the .said o'!J.eq_t~ lc;.1Cled into t;:10 2.ppelJ.2,ni:; 1s Mcom1t :fo~ clem:-~-ioe. .......... ,~ • 0 A tQ 3 T'A.e oL'1.llll tJu-,t this lTru:3 o~Q:llli?..ed betueen offioic:J.s of @.Jill c11.c1. tho . etpJ?el.lant hD.l3 no ~.;.::,;Jis at 2.11 r...s even P'ffll did not touch on this as-~eot -,. W sa._y~ tho,t t;10 n;::~:pollDnt either "impliodlyn o~ ttexpressJ.i' £oi:eed .-·,, the <i:i.eqv.e ancl presented it to the Pol.,vsaoks Coril,:_x•J'lY• .da the npJ?ellm1t ,.- :.is not the one V.J.O J?:-i.'CSoi1ted the cheque to Polysaolcs this str-,to~1t ic totally misler~. -For the above racso:1a I find it unsafe to t?pllold the_ conviation of the a.ppelJ.ant in th:i.s o.::ne [;i'ld, I hereby quash it. aei."'ltenoes of :f01.u- yec.:l'B ~isonment for t::.e second, oour-t c-lld eieht :re~-sr.: irrrp:dsonm.ent fo~ tho 3.,.---d. oount o.:-:-e set SIJido o.nd. I o:t'(l.er tb..:1t t::..e o.:ppellant, :0::1.TI:IDI:Jr J;ii-U,.D:i"u"PE be rele.::sec.l fo:-.•t:iwith unless he is otl::.~i"ise lCJr.fttl.ly llGld. - ~ It;;__JUDGE o L. MKODI!l , 22.1.93 Co.---:em - I!trude, J .. ?fr. Mwengella & Mins Lt-ro.sye _fo7.' :3.epulllic ~. l~•n.:ik~,,sungv.lc, fo-x l'-11?ellant. · ~ ~r.. l>IIGllJil 1
JUDGE ..
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.