19830829 TZHC Mbeya 1
The magistrate's finding on credibility and identification of the stolen clothes was upheld; there were no grounds to interfere with the conviction.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 19830829 TZHC Mbeya 1
- Parties
- Appellant: Maaze s/o Mwiwond; Respondent: The Republic
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 29 August 1983
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Burglary, Theft, Identification of Stolen Property
- 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
Maaze s/o Mwiwond
Appellant
The Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 whether the appellant committed burglary and theft
- 2 whether the identification of stolen property was reliable
Ratio Decidendi
The magistrate's finding on credibility and identification of the stolen clothes was upheld; there were no grounds to interfere with the conviction.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
IN P11 HIGH OUGHT OF TdNZLiiL. dT 113nYe. hiiELhiTH JUHISDICTION (libeya iegi s try) CHflJNaL ]?1EJL NO. 33 OH 1982 ORIGINM CiWJiL CISE NO. 71 OF 1981 . OP TIDI DISTIIICT OUGHT OF 1 'aD DIHI2 AT iTDA Before A. NoIaucci, Lsq , District aIitrate. MAaZE s/o 1viOi*1wD . rELL.NT 1TjRSUS THE idGUJLI .................... , .. .......... iE'ON]ENT CHU.GE: 1st Count: Bglary c/s. 294 (1) of the lenal. Code, Ca.1 2nd Count: Stealing c/s. 265 of the ]leuri Cane, Cap.16. JUDGivLiUIT MUNIERAI J. The appellant was chargea with hirglary and stalling. The story was that during the night of 9/4/81 the complainant s house was broken into and his articles of clothing were stolen. On 5/5/81. iC. Henet: (w.2). searched the appellant s house and seized two i.airs of touseis, shirt and a bag. 11 these were claimed, by the co,11ainaal as his. ho was harged accordingly In his defence he: dunied,o have burglei the complainant's house nor did he steal his clothes -e said on the a1leeci day of breakjn he was away from Hianda town.. He was cenvictedniod. sentenced t o 3 years for burg1aiy and one year for stealing to ran dencurrently. The issue before the court was the identification of the stolen clotb.es. The complainant showad. the court his identifying marks. lie also called. two witnesses (1h4 and 1 7 .1'5 who said they kioew the clothes as his proporty s The .:oppuilant' s •.tL::im that the c1Ghes wore his -4?q-p rejected. This was a e:attoi Pci crodibJity. I have no 7rourni to interfere with the nagistratads finding. 01:. apeoci is :Usmisead in its entirety. I II 1 .1/i - - fiLTc At 1,1bey, • 29th isigu.t 19