19880702 TZHC Mtwara1

19880702 TZHC Mtwara1

The charge was not defective as publication of the maximum price in the Daily News satisfied the requirements of section 16(1) of the Regulation of Price Act, 1973. The particulars in the charge were sufficient to inform the accused of the nature of the offence. The plea of guilty was unequivocal. The sentence of 15 months imprisonment was not excessive given the appellant's prior conviction and the prevalence of the offence. The appeal against conviction and sentence, and the application for bail pending appeal, are dismissed.

Citation
19880702 TZHC Mtwara1
Parties
Appellant: Lukia Said; Respondent: The Republic
Court
TZHC
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
2 July 1988
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Consolidated Appeal and Bail Application
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Controlled Goods, Price Regulation, Defective Charge, Sentencing, Bail Pending Appeal
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Regulatory Law Controlled Goods Price Regulation Defective Charge Sentencing Bail Pending Appeal

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lukia Said

Appellant

The Republic

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Consolidated Appeal and Bail Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the charge was defective for failing to cite the Government Notice fixing the maximum price
  2. 2 Whether the plea of guilty was valid
  3. 3 Whether the sentence imposed was excessive and whether an option of a fine should have been given

Ratio Decidendi

The charge was not defective as publication of the maximum price in the Daily News satisfied the requirements of section 16(1) of the Regulation of Price Act, 1973. The particulars in the charge were sufficient to inform the accused of the nature of the offence. The plea of guilty was unequivocal. The sentence of 15 months imprisonment was not excessive given the appellant's prior conviction and the prevalence of the offence. The appeal against conviction and sentence, and the application for bail pending appeal, are dismissed.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • conviction and sentence affirmed
  • application for bail pending appeal dismissed