N
The court found no good reason to prefer the prosecution witness's word over the appellant's and determined that the evidence did not meet the threshold for conviction based on circumstantial evidence and alleged threats.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- N
- Parties
- Appellant: Lododicr Mbeferal; Respondent: Republic of Tanzania
- Court
- TZCA
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 1 January 1989
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction
- Outcome
- appeal allowed, conviction quashed
- Legal Topics
- Murder, Circumstantial Evidence, Threats
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Lododicr Mbeferal
Appellant
Republic of Tanzania
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the conviction for murder was justified based solely on alleged threats and circumstantial evidence
Ratio Decidendi
The court found no good reason to prefer the prosecution witness's word over the appellant's and determined that the evidence did not meet the threshold for conviction based on circumstantial evidence and alleged threats.
Court Disposition
appeal allowed, conviction quashed
Orders
- Conviction for murder set aside
- Sentence of death quashed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
:.. r~ ., J ~.-•..LJ ;J.rs-_1 D~"IL Z,~ ~j_.J.,1~·Ji ( •1 T lJ ', O.i.- C 2 J .L.) C?..~'.iff1J., i~PPELL EO. 112 CF 1989 FILBER.'J: LDODIC-..'..R MBEF.:i1r?.L. 0 •• ....~PPELLJJ\JT versus (Lppeal :from tlle convic·cion of' ·foe Eig:1 Cot1.rt of Tanzanfo 2.t Songe2..) (Kazi;noto$ -,h) da;i;ecl the 26th d.ay of Jime ~ 1 909 in JtJ.DGMN1 T OF TID COGRT ICT S.;'.JiG1~ 2 J .ii.. g This appeal a.rioes from the d.ociGio~ or -~:10 ITigh Court J.) co"nvicting the 3,ppellant of nurcler ancl. senio;:ici;,1g him ·i;o clea:i;h~ day of -'Ghe inci(le:.:c :cl.le 1:i.eceaf.rnd nncJ. .:;ome o·c:ier per3ons were at a po:abe clv.b followi::1g an over-night d.rinlcinG scc;sion -~hereo Then at about 8 0 1 clock tha;i; mor.1i11g tho po3be club wa:i:icbma~1 made a ge;10ral c:.:L10n.1cem011t resnonsible . to retv.1--;,1 ·v'·2_1e stol''"ll = proper~:'lr•' uv ., r.;,,e • · c'ece~se,1 .:. ~e p e"D•-·-.. ec-." ·0110 .L • 1~ '' · ap;_Jeo, Cl, _.._ •I 'I-Thereupon t11e appellant who was a friend of "i:~1e cleceasecl and. Hho had come ·i;o tl2e pombe club only when the announcement was i:-1ade 9 pattec.1. -~:1e C:.ecei:-=;ecl Then the a~Jpellant left the pombe · club e.nc:. on the way he r,1et t].1e wife of the deccaoec1. (F.W.1) ani:11.·.11otl1er 1roma11 (P.W.2) J:1eacl.L1s for ' ~ the pombc club. li.6 2.in accorcling to the prosec·c;,tio:1, the appclla~1 t 2 I o::, .'.1or we,y ::,2,ck /rom t:10 ::;or_:bG ch1b, fou:t,(.~ !:i,.1 lyi::,.c; o.e2,cl 0;1 ·l;.'rn 1-ra~- i,02,1· In ~1is defence -c.'1c appellant agreed v1s;,.·ci:1g tbe po;;i,bo cl;..,:) a:..1cl tl10 c.lecec1;2;ed.o :fo also agreec. ;;1oeti11g P.W.1 and. ?.W.2 011 their way -to -t:rn pombe club but c":.er1iod. nt·cering an;t threat to, the lif'e of t:10 C_eco~,sccl • .:~cco rdin 6 to J:-.in he ::;1e1~01y askocl P. W.1 if sl:e 1'i7.1s {;'oing to fetch 01· tu.to ·00 say that upon lo2-vL1..z t~1e pow be club 2,t abov:c 12 a~m. ie w2,s feoli;1g • 1eacler ancl went to t:.io occnc of crirne w!.1oro ,he :i:ov.nd the c:ocear::;ocl lyiag dead. On his rn1y ~wme from tho pombe :i club :10 did not see t:10 cleceased. In convicting tho appellant ·cllo ·cri2,l ju~l.30 rcliccl 0:.1 ·c!10 tuo tllreatc allo-gedly u·ctc1~ecl by t.'.10 appellm1t: '.J.1!.:o fir::.:·~ one was in response to tho an;.101,mooramt of theft a·i; t~10 por:11J-:; club wlw:-ccbJr tl10 2,ppollant is saicl to .:~ave told tho d.ocoasoct t::.::i:~ 11 t:1cy would ;:;oeil... Lnl t!J.c second one was 1·111011 l:0 all egccJ.ly told F. W.1 ai.1t~ ? • W. 2 th2,·~ the clecoased would not climb tb.2.,-',; 1:101.-:n-caino J\1:r. D. :3. iig2,lo 9 learned a~1d flnws in t!w prosoc\..:.tion evi&ci.1Cc G1..1.ch.' thr::c tlle case d.ic1_ 11.ot moot ·chc tost for convicting upon circ1Jji1st2.ncial e1icl.01:.oe., ... ... i:1 cov.nsol rs Tllo :::~;_)pollc..nt I s cowrictiori rostn w!.10lly on t:·10 two tJi.rc,,,ts ,?..r, n.llccoc: by" I prococF-cion aml on issued. tho tJ2.1·ec:i:1;s because ho was c:isploauocl i"rith tllo appeal r,1e,do ~)Y :::12,clo cono:;_~o,lly ancl we c2.11 find no· [:;Oocl. rcaoon 1-;b.,Y -~ho c:ppollant :/lo'!...1lcL I· b:we felt of:fonclocl by it w].10~1 it -u.::i,s ;10t cli:i.'cc·~od to him. -1;l_~i8 view is consifftont with ·tho nppolk.nt I s 0':-r;.1 ovicloncc when llo ·cJ.1..0 theft• It o>.oulcl be notocl th~ t thoro w2,s I only one :t)rosocution 1-ritnoss (P.H.,3) wllo had. c1.,sso.rtocl ·i;l1at t~!C appellant l:-..acl uttered. a thro[',t c1·i; tho po:nbo ,, club, but in tho lie:,frt; of what we lJ.avo s0-icl c1,bovo we tl1ink that ·chore w2,s no coocl ronson for profering P. W.3 1 s worcl to tho:I; of the appellant• Ind0Gd . to rovon-eo it on tho clocoased for merely l'cpo2,til:c it rather t::!.B.n on ti-3 · porabo club vratclmo..H w:.·w wc..s its .:1uthor. In o..~:.31 c2,00 ovc:i.1 if it is i't,1.rthor 2..sst@ocl that tho appoo..l uns diroctocl to t.'..10 appolla~"!t, we do not t~:.i:nk that e. r,10.ro rcpoti tion of it by tho _clocoasco_ would !c,wo J.Joon sufficiont to 0,ng-or tl:c Q,}.Jpollmr~ to the extent of making him clociclo to oliai:na·co tl).O clcco"sod ·who vc-,s his frio;1d. Tho 2oss crt ion by P. W. 1 ancl Po Wo2 tl::.c~, t ·bo · 2, ppol lan t throat onocl tho life of tho doceasod dso is not free from c-q.f:.:j_culty • Tho trial j-0.clgo · fo1.m.cl. thc.,t tl1e 2.ppollc.nt v:&torocl thff~ throat• otrc of continuocl 2-ngor