19830829 TZHC Mbeya 2
The appellant was properly convicted based on the evidence that he broke into the complainant's house and was found hiding inside; his explanation was not credible and the sentences imposed were the minimum required by law.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 19830829 TZHC Mbeya 2
- Parties
- Appellant: Lumu Lddi Salunji Matllant; Respondent: The Republic
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 29 August 1983
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Housebreaking, Stealing, Appeal, Sentencing
- 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
Lumu Lddi Salunji Matllant
Appellant
The Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the conviction for housebreaking and stealing was proper
- 2 Whether the sentence imposed was lawful
Ratio Decidendi
The appellant was properly convicted based on the evidence that he broke into the complainant's house and was found hiding inside; his explanation was not credible and the sentences imposed were the minimum required by law.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Conviction and sentence affirmed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
IN TE HIGH COUJiT OF TNZANIJi P iHLLT JUJISDICTION (Mbeya Registry) CflINL A l iEIL NO. 34 OF 1983 It ORIGINi.L CflZNINL C.S' NC. 150 OF 1982 OP T} flIbTRICT COUHT OF Ni iITRICT T ILNDA Before: Limu E. Taji, Esq., District !ilagistrate. S LUMU LDDI S.lLUN.J hITLLL.NT VERSUS TE R1UBLIC • . ......... . .......... .• . . . BE'ON]T ARG: .st Ct: House breaking Q/s, 294 (1) of the ena1 Code. nd Ct: Stea1ir c/s 265 of tflL itna1 Code, Cai.16 JJiGLLQ MUNY}SA, J. The appellant was charge-i with housebreaktng and stea1ing it was stated that on 13/7/82 th e 'oij1inart C,i T 1), tcle2, va in 1iS c1aa room o He had left has wife I~aria L t i . 2) at hcTie. Then at about ha heard 9 a,r noises and a crowd of peo p le at 1as house, He wint t see. On the way he n o t his wife Maria who inu e han t 1r. a thief ha itered their house and when he was chaliengéi he entered the bath roda ad locked it from iiide. The complal?mnt went and vLr ed th L. tmL. er eono had entered the house througi the wiiirloii.nd sccter clothea ar the bedrooe.. He went $0 the bathroozi and founL it lokci froa ansaae, ith the help of other people, the db~ol was b±kh and1 fê] .áátdrid inside. He -S S aoor.ng1y, In his dcfence he said he had beerx invited by the complainant's • Wgr wifeMaria (14.2) to g tq,at,lQq.$e. o.thc oc, ofnaking love, Then she sent for her husband (iv.1) ani when he cafle he branded him a thief. H e was civicted and snt cad to i'e years for the ftbunt (he had aP' re vI ous and one year for the second, to ruh-- coneurrently. He. appealed. This appeal should not, have been ackiitted. He admitted that the Goiaplainant and his wife were strn , 'crs to lum. There was no rea*on why they should have taken all th troubles to fraie h: U 0onr'n in odr. sentences was the m.n1muk fixed by law. Tic appeal is d.snu.ss-ed in .ts entirety. • . S -. :' - ¼.J * At 1i1beya,. . . .. .. 29th 983 TTn)Gh.