19900226 TZHC Dar es Salaam
- Citation
- 19900226 TZHC Dar es Salaam
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Court
- TZHC
- Decision
- 26 February 1990
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- TZHC
- Decision
- 26 February 1990
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
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
AppellantThe United Republic
RespondentAmounts and remedies
- Fine Imposed: shs 30,000
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the appellant's plea was unequivocal
- 02
Whether the sentence imposed was appropriate under the Immigration Act
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
Legal principles
- 01
Haworth and Another (1970) HCD 271
If a plea contains admissions of all the ingredients of the offence charged, it should be sustained.
- 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.
TZHC
Judgment· 26 February 1990
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~ : \_.
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.