19880416 TZHC Dar es Salaam
The conviction and sentence under the repealed statute (Cap 77) were unlawful, and it would be wrong to substitute a more serious offence under Act 62 of 1966 for the lesser offence originally charged. The conviction is quashed and the sentence set aside.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 19880416 TZHC Dar es Salaam
- Parties
- Appellant: Naomi Kibopile; Respondent: The United Republic
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 16 April 1988
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appellate Judgment
- Outcome
- conviction quashed and sentence set aside
- Legal Topics
- Unlawful Possession, Local Liquor, Substitution of Charges, 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
Naomi Kibopile
Appellant
The United Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appellate Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether a conviction under a repealed statute can be substituted with a conviction under a more serious current statute
- 2 Whether the appellant's conviction and sentence were lawful given the repeal of the original statute
Ratio Decidendi
The conviction and sentence under the repealed statute (Cap 77) were unlawful, and it would be wrong to substitute a more serious offence under Act 62 of 1966 for the lesser offence originally charged. The conviction is quashed and the sentence set aside.
Court Disposition
conviction quashed and sentence set aside
Orders
- Appellant's conviction quashed
- Sentence set aside
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
/j/4' TIJ Tiill IIIGZ COURT OF J.li.l,iZ,.'JUII. 1,T DLB. ES Sfi.LALM LPPELLli.TE JUiff,SDICTION IIIGII COUTIT CRIMINAL APPEAL l'JO. 32 OF 1938 ORIGDTitL CRIMINAL CASE NO. 221 OF 1900 OF 'l\!E DISTRICT COURT OI:' 1asurm DISTRICT L'r ILALA DElT'ORE A. T. C. LYJJ'1UYA SENIOR RESIDENT r-Il~GIS'ilJ.~N:i:E NAOMI KIBOPILE ••••• , ••••.. " •••••••••••• , "APPELLANT ( Origil1.D1 Accusccl) versus TY~ UNITED REPUBLIC •••., ••••••••••••••• RESPONDENT ( Ori[;'inc.l :ri~o:Jocutor) JUDGMENT KYAND0 2 J. Tho Gppellrnyl; plcril.ocl guilty to the offence uf unl.'.'.:wful IlOSscssion of locc1l liquor c/ss 33 r,nll 51 (1) oi' ·;;110 1% . . . tivo Orclirn·..nco, Ca.p 9 77a. She WGS convictm.1 c.ncl sci1toncou. ·co eight i.1011-thG I inprisorr.1ont. !Dhc (' pcrticulms of t'.:o offence iu t!.10 clmrgc shoot show.i!ld t!.1~.t tho n.ppollrmt was found. in possession of L"., g<".lon of no. ti v0 liquor 11 cor,1:1011lJ lmown a,s gongo c1.11u. instrw:ronts of Di'ld.ng gol".go.," Gongo is 3 o:.: course, ri.lso corr.10nly lmcnm n.s ~ Co..p 77 vms ropo~~locl. in 1963 c.,i1cl Section 2 of Act 23 of 196H which ropcc.locl. C.::ip. 77 specificc..lly provides thc:ct noshi is no-ti one of t!w liquorn covered. by tho..t li.cto Tho proper provision of the law on .-rb.ich the ch.'.',rgc shoulc.l hcLVO boon ba,sod ·. ;i.e. section 30 of tho Moshi (Vi;:,.,nu:t'ncturo .'."..ncl Distillation) ii.ct (No. 62 of 1966) 9 c.nd tho quor.:;tion uhich n.rison is w~:cthor a, conviction cc..n 1.)c also subati tutod unc.:cr Section 30. mi 1J..S J..SSUC .L •.• • • oa,,.1/ · ClXOo'f"-111 '1 "li-10 CC.,SO Of. _1. 1_ DIJJ\. __ Jill'Il1. V!.lb_ (1970) II.C.D n.37. I::1 thnt en.co Platt 9 J, (<'. a ;·,e then wo.s) nftcr aot·i;ing out tho irwuo c..s ctctuJ nbovo !.:old~- "On tho 0110 :w. nc.l, -~ho pc'..r-i;iocu.loxc of tl10 chc..rr-;-e rn::.cl the c'.-CCU::rnd 1o cdi:1is;:;iona roforrocl to unlnwful pocsossion of Moohi. Jlonco to i:mbstituto c. conviction unclor Scc-tion 30 woul<.l not 9 in one: oenco, n.ffcct tho n.ccusccl ['.,:J fa..r [:,S uho .uncl.orstood tho ch;:,..rgo.. But on tho otlwr lwJ.1u, tho clifficuHy ic thnt soctic•n 30 proviclon for a. uoro scriouo of:~'onco, in tor;-1s of the:: punishnont whic!1 r..1c1.y be mra.rclccl, -;;;,_nn J.;ho.,t in ooction 65 of 11.ct 2G o:f 1968. It is gonornll,T ~ig.'.'..inst principle for r:, r.ioro serious clln,r[;o to be su.bs-~itutcc.1 for a lo:33or cb.a,rrro, 1.mloss there o.ro specific provisions o.,llowing such substitution. Tho broo.c.l principloG G.pplic,.-,_,blc to ·i;ho.,t t~11)0 of co..so were roviowocl by Sir Ra,lpl1 TTinilll,"B in Ro v. IlfDO PRLSil.D Ji~'IIE TR.t.Jl'.i DAVE ( Cr.Rev. No.,40 o:f 1963 publis~oLl in tJ.10 Lrn-r Report S...:tpplou'ont to tho Gn.zettc (Ho.l of 1964) (clc:tou. 21st Fcbruc,ry, 1964) ri.ncl n,t pae,-o 14 of tho Supplo:.10nt tho loc..r!1ocl Chi of Juo-ticc ( e,s ho tl:.0::1 W0-G) notocl tk,t, in the case boforo !.,.i~.1, no injuotioo coulcl 0ccruo to -~::c a.ccusccl. 9 because the now ch.:1.reo to bo substi tutoc.1 uoulLl bu one of c, los::;or offence t)1ru1 tho ohn.rgo uronely c~:ru:e;oc.l. It socns to r.10 thnt i-li would. lJo nrong to allmr tho substitution of a eren.-tor of:fonco in Cc'.,SO tl~oro nicht lJo injustice to ·bho ~ouc0rl 9 ;:.i,nc.1 t 1u::.t tho principle sl.10ulL1 be c..LU1crod to, tllc:st c.n - 2 - acousml shoulcl know t:io reel oh~-TCG broygl-lt ['.,.:;·;,,i;.1st hi:~a r, ,• J , virtu0 of ;:iy·rovision2,l powers, I quush '·•OCOI'lcll'lt3' .y ,)Y the conviction c:1.11<1. sot ::;siclc t.120 fJGntonco. Turnincs to t~10 insto.nt cciso, t:-.io off-cnce of unlawful pom:iossion of nosJ:.i unc.lor Section 51 (1) of Cc1,p 77 <1ttra.ctocl ri, :-:i2..:c.-.Tt..1.r1 p01ml ty of Shs" 1 9 000/:::: or inpriso:o.r.10nt for t!.rreo r.wnths (not eight r.10nths i;-.1posod lJy tho trin,l r,K1.,gistr,1to). '1:1he sGDo offo1100 v., ttro..cts .o. r.1Cl.if.i:1Ur.1 sonto;.1co of fi vo years under Section 30 of ~ct 62 of 1966. In tcrr.1s of t!:-..e punisb.10nt ~1Jiicl: ::10,y :::o awr..rdod therefore pos □ ossion under Section 30 i_s a g.rontor offence thc:,n it wn.s UJ.1tlor Section 51 of C.:i,p. 77. It woulcl 9 in view of t!w j,olclb.3 in L.clija Junc1 (suprC'..) 1:io wrong ·cl:01·oforo to substi tuto for t)!.c o:i:fonco unclor Cu,p, 77 t2,o offence tmclor Let 62 of 1966. Mr. Kisusi for tho appollo..nt sub;·.1ittoc.l tllat 2,s tho 2.p;)ellant had plondccl f,iv.il-i;y in t]_:'.a louc:r court ho coul(l not appehl c,c,·c..inst l1or conviction,, Ho prC1yocl tlmt I ~r.orcisc rovision2-l powers 2.11tl quc:1.s2~ -c]~_(J conviction. :Mr. KjT2,ruzi for tl10 Republic srcid ho was not supporting the G.P:t)ollant I s conviction. I 8{-_;"'.l'0o, :Cor the roi1sons I 1lL1.vc ornlovourocl to sot out heroin n,bovo, 1-,ith loarnod cow1sol cmcl in o.xorciso of r.1,y rovisio;_ml powors, I qur.i,sh u,i)i)GJ.lc..:.1.t I s conviction: ,J.m: set aside tho sontcnqo inposcd on horQ I orclor t2·,.ct s:10 bo roloc1;:ccl :cron prison irn:1ediri:~oly ili:ilos,s she is othor- wiso lcwr.fully holc.1 there. DAR ES Sl.L/JJ-~