Download PDF

Tanzania Judgment

TZHC

19900226 TZHC Dar es Salaam

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The appellant admitted all elements of the offence, making the plea unequivocal. However, given her age and statutory provisions, she should have been given the option to pay a fine instead of a custodial sentence.

Court disposition

appeal against sentence allowed; conviction upheld

Orders

  • Sentence altered to a fine of shs.30,000/-; in default, one year imprisonment

02

Material facts

Parties

Mariam Mohamed Kulame

Appellant

The United Republic

Respondent

Amounts and remedies

  • Fine Imposed: shs 30,000

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Criminal Appeal / Judgment

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The appellant contended her plea was equivocal and that a custodial sentence was uncalled for, citing her age and the statutory option for a fine.
Respondent
The respondent agreed the appellant should have been given the option to pay a fine, especially considering her age.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Haworth and Another (1970) HCD 271

    If a plea contains admissions of all the ingredients of the offence charged, it should be sustained.

  2. 02

    Immigration Act, 1972

    Section 26(2) of the Immigration Act prescribes a penalty of a fine not exceeding shs.30,000/- or imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years or both.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The appellant admitted all elements of the offence, making the plea unequivocal. However, given her age and statutory provisions, she should have been given the option to pay a fine instead of a custodial sentence.

Obiter and limits

  • The maximum fine penalty appears inappropriate today due to currency devaluation.

Court disposition

appeal against sentence allowed; conviction upheld

  • Sentence altered to a fine of shs.30,000/-; in default, one year imprisonment

Source and reliance status

TZHC · 26 February 1990

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· 26 February 1990

19900226 TZHC Dar es Salaam

H· I ' Dl~J.ic!TIIGITCOURT0FTM{ZANIA 11T DAR ES S.:UJ~-1 .t..PPELLATE JlliUSDICTION EIGJ.I COURT CRIMil{AL APPEAL N0·.12 OF 1990 (Fro~ original C-..ci.rtl.naJ. Case No.94 ~f 1990 of the District Court of llala District at I(;i.sutu) MARIAM lf.!OIIAMED KUL.11:ME •• o • ., a .. ., . . . . . . . . . . . o . . . . . . • • • • o • • • • APPELLANT (Origi.11.:il Accused) versus TIIE UNITED REPUBLIC ....... 11. t O o>. 6 IO o 4 .. t O O. DO.• .... 0 • • • • RESPONDENT . (Origi.nal Prosecutor) JUDGMENT- MA.PIGANO 1 J !. The appellru.·rt. ·1aariam Uohemed ICulame was brought l)efore the learned m13gistra,te at Kisutu District Court charged 1-Tith having in her possession a passport which was issued without le.wful t authority,_ contrcxy t'o section 26( 1 ) ( e) alld. ( 2) of ·i;l1e Iranigration Act, 1972. The :r,r:rliaulars alleged that the offenaa · -took place on 18/1/90 a-'li ribou·t 9 p.n,.. at the Dar es Sala.am 1n·;;em,.·-:d;ional Airport witr.±n -'-;he District of Ilala.. When the plea was read owr ancl. e:r.plained to the appellant she is :recorded. c.1,s hav:i.ng said ttit is truen • This was entered as a plea of guilty~ The record shows that when -'Ghe ]?".roseoutcn- was asked to state the facts in support of the .charce he respo- ruied by saying tlfacts as pe:r charge shee-'i;tl • Next the lG2.rned magistrate conVic-ted the appellant of the offence charced and passed upon her.

a sentence of imprisonnent for· a term of one Y€al'• "In her pe-'i:;i-'liion of 3.pp0al the appellant contends -~hat her plea. was equ:i.vocal.. I am not persuaded. The app0llant_ ad.mitted the truth of -the charge, upon the ch;::irge having l)een read and explained to her. That is to Sa¥ she adnitted that she was in possession of -'lihe passport on the da;y- _and at the tir.1e and place . speoif'ied in the OMrge. She also admitted that t.he passport was issued to h~. ~--Ti thottt lawful. anthori ty._:fue said noth:ing when she was accorded an opportuni-tzy" to address the court. In these circuI!lstanoes I am satisfied .. that she ad.mi tted a1l -'i;he int,-:Tedients. ·• ( of the offenc~ charged and that the proceedings -w=o·• .i.ltJt .irregular• ' .. It is trv..e that this court has on a numbc:p- of occ:iasions stated that 1-lhe:re /:Ol1 accused person pleads "it is tru.(3'°t ·-:to the . . . charge it is desira1Jle that the proscoutw-should. s:tm.-'1i0 briefly ' 4;" . the facts on which the charge is hasc,d~ The proseoutor' s' ste,tement sel.'Ves two pw:pos6s. First, it enables the court ·to check if the I.:, •' . . ' . .: •i:·',!;/,". --· ,·,t: I • T, - - 2 - accused's adoission of the charge is real.:cy unequivocaJ.., Second.JJ", · it provides : ·the court , ' 'With materials . . ~- • ~ that• m~ . help it to asseEfs . r· . an a,ppropriate·-'puni$ci,aht.r . .But .. the

absence ·ot·· su.oh statemaiff(;i.s ·not ; .. ' - always f~t~ J.;o· th~{·c.~9.~19,i, as J.o~el?_l~ Haw!®i'orth and Another {1970). HCD 271, a·oase cited-by OOUl'l,eel for -the "appellant, show~, If a ple~ contains ad.missions of. -al~ the ingr:cdie..."'l.te ar the offence charged it · should be' sus·tained. I ·di~s.... tlie .. appeal f:t'om the conviction• . ., --- , . . The appellant also contends that. a, ~1.st9di~ ·sentence was uncalled for in this case . and Dzy' a;b·~ention has been drawn· to ·the provision -of seotion 26(2) of .the _Inmigra-tion Act,. Under that provision the penaley- prefJQribed for the offence is a fii-;,.e not• excee- ding shs.30,000/- or imprisonment for a term"not exceeding -'~ee yea.rs or both suoh :fl.Ua and iopriijanm.ent.. It mey be observed that in view of the devaJ.ua:;;;on ;ef the- shUlin.g' ,that has talcen place since 1972 the . rmx1mum. fine pen;µty would. appeax-~tQ....ba iru:.pprop:d,ate to-dc\Y'•· . . · i Like the Re~Uc I agree with t!io p:r;oposition that the appellant should have bea1 given the option to pey a fine 1 if only on account of her age. It i.s said that she is 17 years and. indeed she looks that age._ I allow J~he appeal agaipirt the ociitenoe. I alter the sentence and impose a fine of. SJ.S,YJ,000/.... 1n dofnul:t one year in}:Srisont1Gnt- . ~1l. ·r~ (D ;p ..?UJ'IG/.HO)

JUDGE 26/2/1990~ : \_.

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.

Haworth and Another (1970) HCD 271

Case cited

Immigration Act, 1972, section 26(1)(e) and (2)

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.