19830820 TZHC Mbeya 1
- Citation
- 19830820 TZHC Mbeya 1
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Court
- TZHC
- Decision
- 20 August 1983
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- TZHC
- Decision
- 20 August 1983
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
Conviction cannot be upheld due to lack of technical evidence regarding weight and absence of price list; trial magistrate relied on verbal versions without verifying facts or authority.
Court disposition
appeal allowed
Orders
- conviction quashed
- sentence set aside
- appellant ordered immediate release
02
Material facts
Parties
Ligina Accused
AppellantRepublic
RespondentAmounts and remedies
- Rice Price Per Bowl: shs 10
- Rice Price Per Kilo (alleged Regulated Price): shs 7.2
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the appellant sold goods above the maximum price fixed by regulation
- 02
Whether the appellant failed to display the maximum price of controlled goods
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Appellant denied selling the rice in question and alleged the case was planted against her.
- Respondent
- Respondent alleged appellant sold rice above the regulated price and failed to display the price.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Regulation of Price Act 1973
Conviction requires technical evidence relating to the relationship of the bowl to metric weights and production of the price list in court.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
Conviction cannot be upheld due to lack of technical evidence regarding weight and absence of price list; trial magistrate relied on verbal versions without verifying facts or authority.
Obiter and limits
- Court should have verified weight by weighing contents or obtaining expert evidence from department of weights and measures.
- Trial magistrate did not know who fixed the price or whether they had authority.
Court disposition
appeal allowed
- conviction quashed
- sentence set aside
- appellant ordered immediate release
Source and reliance status
TZHC · 20 August 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· 20 August 1983
- - - 4 - iC IN TIfl HIGH COUTIT OF TTh
LT YA •/F23]lL 1E JtJRISDICTIOi HIGH CQtYRf CRININIL :.PEAL NO.54 OF 1983 (Original Cri-nna1 Cso 10.195 )f 1983 of. the District Court of Nbeya DistrIct at Mboya.': .. Before: J.B. Mhagama, District istrate) .......OAPPELLLNT Li g inai Accused) Versus ¶II. REPUBLIC. . . . .. . •. . , . . . . . . . . . . •• . . ,,•, . . .RES)NIYENT (O±"iginai Prosextor) Clr ge 1st count, Seiiooda above the maximum prlcO c/s 20 N0.19 of B.egulatión of price :ct .1973 2nd. cowit Failing to disp1a'h raimu price of the Rguiat3.on tç rive controlle4 goods o/a'17 '(i)'&' No.W'ö Iteguiatiih bf. pri.' JQ The appellaut was char-did witb, two couxibe4I111 goods above the maximum piibe kix by the rt' Cocamission and failing to &ip1ay th ojoods she was selling. The e'id.cc wa t/83.'PC Francis (Pdi) had informtion that traders wexe hiki4g : prices. He sot out to the market. He c11od at the appe11ants place and askca for rico hG gave het k.10O1= note and she returned a change of shs40/ He ha bght 6 bowls (bakuli) at shs.lO/=' each, It was said th% *e contents of the bowl weighed less than a kilogram. appellant wis accordingly charged. Ii: her defonco denied that she sold the rice in ouest:n. That t4 pliaR had planted the ctsc againet her. She as convict f the first count and sontencod to one y. imprisonme SI was ac'.it 4 the '-c ' -. c.uit.. h ha aea1d. 9hre ws alo cvi [ieo t. .t t :. ±i.nt s .ilJ 6 bowls a
shs06O/= or ioJ och, Oil n :r C)flViotiofl cannot be upheld fr - o rosG F, i r s t here x ,as no technical ev•idene as to the rclttionshi of the bowl to the metric weightb Tho court should have verified this fact by hoving the cutents of bowl weighed and make a finding in that rc-spect or, 1tornatively get the evidence of an expert from the deprtmont f weights and measures. The eccm,4 reason is that thoprice list Was not produced in eourtQ The trial maistr;te was contented with the vorbeJ vcrsi3ns of the witnesses that, the price o rice wts shs07/20 a kilo She dId not evei-t know wiio fixed the pxice and whether he. had the authority to so fix., With the abo.b rerrks this app.cal must sucd. I quaCh the ape.lzft 9 s conviction which the Republic di4 not sock t su.1 ort 9 set aidc t'e sontQnce and order her 1rrned1atL - .----- At Mboya . JtJDGi 20/8/83 T1-
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.