Download PDF

Tanzania Judgment

TZHC

19830820 TZHC Mbeya 1

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

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

Appellant

Republic

Respondent

Amounts and remedies

  • Rice Price Per Bowl: shs 10
  • Rice Price Per Kilo (alleged Regulated Price): shs 7.2

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Criminal Appeal / Judgment

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

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

  1. 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.

Source document

TZHC

Judgment· 20 August 1983

19830820 TZHC Mbeya 1

- - - 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-

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Regulation of Price Act 1973

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

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.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.