19900226 TZHC Dar es Salaam
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.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 19900226 TZHC Dar es Salaam
- Parties
- Appellant: Mariam Mohamed Kulame; Respondent: The United Republic
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 26 February 1990
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal against sentence allowed; conviction upheld
- Legal Topics
- Plea of Guilty, Sentencing, Immigration Offences
- 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
Mariam Mohamed Kulame
Appellant
The United Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellant's plea was unequivocal
- 2 Whether the sentence imposed was appropriate under the Immigration Act
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.
Court Disposition
appeal against sentence allowed; conviction upheld
Orders
- Sentence altered to a fine of shs.30,000/-; in default, one year imprisonment
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
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~ : \_.